GAY LIBERATIOCT kWD 3QGULI3M;
Bdouments From the Discussions on Gay
Liberation Inside the Socialist Workers
Party (1970-1973)
Selected, Introduced, and With Commentary
hy David Thors|ad
IHTROBUGTIOH . ^ - ■ _ '
This booklet contains close to 40 documents from internal dis-
?-,ssions on gay liberation within the Socialist Workers Party (SVrP)
i::- 1970 to 1973. These documents have never before been published,
except for strictly internal SvfP use. A total of 104 documents was
Tublished during three periods of three months each: the pre-con-
vention discussion of 1971 (Vol, 29; 14 documents); the special
literary discussion on gay liberation in 1972 (Vol, 30; 56 documents);
and the pre~convention discussion of 1973 (Vol. 31; 34 documents).
Tie documents presented here represent a selection of both the best
and the worst of these discussions., I have had to make a selection
primarily because of financial considerations: I simply could not
afford to publish them all. Many useful or revealing documents have
iiad to be left out. Nevertheless, I have included all major docu-
ments, and a number of others in order to provide an accurate overview
of what is to my knowledge the only thorough discussion of this
question to date in any left-wing organization anywhere in the world.
In addition, I am including in this collection a few other items '
of interest, such as the analysis of the discussions that I wrote for
^'^® Gay Liberator (Dec 1974-Jan. 1975); in some ways, this article
serves as an in-depth introduction to this collection, and I suggest
that it be read before a ;]ourney through the remainder of the docu-
nents is undertaken.
¥here possible, I have obtained permission to reprint. Many of
the authors are still members or leaders of the SVfP, and their per-
mission could not be obtained by someone who is now outside the party.
I have not let this deter me, however, for I regard these documents
as being of considerable value to the gay liberation movement. In
view of the S>rP's own failure to make them available to interested
persons, I see no alternative but to publish them at my ovra expense,
i have published 100 copies. The sale price of this booklet barely
covers my expenses.
This collection is designed to accomplish two things. First, to
provide a "feel" for the evolution of the discussions as the party
moved from its lifting of the ban on membership of homosexuals in"
1970, through its initial efforts to relate somewhat positively to
the theoretical and practical challenges raised by the gay libera-
tion movement, to its gradual solidifying of a position on the ques-
tion and its adoption of its present stance at the convention in
August 1973o Second, and most important, to further discussion of
crucial theoretical and strategical issues within the gay liberation
movement.
I have decided to make these documents available for three
reasons. First, the liberal-reformist wing of the gay movement is
still the dominant force within it. Yet this wing has contributed
nothing whatever to increasing a theoretical understanding of gay
oppression and liberation, let alone explaining why the struggle for
gay liberation can only be achieved through the destruction of
capitalism and its replacement with a truly human society that only
socialism can bring about. Second, socialist-minded gays are now
seriously trying to grapple with these questions, not only in the
^4t- .
United States, but throughout the world. Third, neither the SlfP nor jji
any other left group is doing much of anything to advance the struggle v,
for gay liberation (beyond publishing an occasional pamphlet, running f]
an occasional news article in its press, or carrying an occasional c(
banner in a gay demonstration). However much an improvement this may
be over the habit of the Stalinized Communist parties (and their c(
Mao-oid offspring) of dismissing homosexuality as a "product of hour- e(
geois decadence" or something equally stupid, it is a far cry from theE^
essential task of Integrating homosexual liberation into the overall
struggle of the working class to overthrow capitalism. These document!
will shed some light on the difficulties, as well as the necessity,
of accomplishing this task*
These documents-^especially those from the 1973 pre-convention
discussion, during which gay liberationists submitted and fought for
a counterresolution to the ^'memorandum" of the party leader ship-"- j
often represent the distillation of a sometimes lengthy, involved g
process of debate, self-criticism, and rewriting. There is certainly
an interesting story here"~on how gay liberationists arrived at our
common positions, on how we hammered out our approach. This story^
would Include the problems we faced in attempting to present our views
in oral debate before party units, the sometimes factional approach
followed by the secondary party leadership in combatting us, and the
way in 7rhich some gay comrades rushed to make peace with the party ,
leadership once its "memorandum" had been published^ I would hope I
that this full story could be told some other times I do not tell it
here because my aim in publishing these documents Is less to tell the -.i
story of the struggle than it is to make Important analyses available =3
to a gay movement for which they are still immensely relevant several
years after they were written,. 1^
I would like to make a couple of brief observations, however. r;:
On the role of lesbians in this discussioni Pew documents by lesbian
comrades were submittedo. And none of the lesbians who were in the *:;
eye of the party (through activity in the women's or antiwar move- i"
ments, or who were in a leadership position of some kind) wrote a /-
thing in the discussion. I do not know the explanation for thiso
A few privately expressed general agreement with the analysis we pre-
sented. But when the final votes were taken, all wound up supporting
the leadership's posit ion « This abstention on the part of most • ■
lesbians accounts for the dearth of documents by lesbians in the
present collection.
The party leadership tended to dismiss the question of transvest-
ism as irrelevant to the discussion on gay liberation. I do not be-
lieve it was, however. The leadership tried to argue that the S¥P .
did not ban transvestites, but rather that its policy of "dress and
decorum" (which really was irrelevant to a discussion on gay libera-
tion) merely restricted tfansvestlte and drag behavior to private
moments. This arg^oment was defended as a way of protecting the party
from acquiring an "exotic" image. In reality, it was used to exclude
any transvestite comrade (of whom several, mostly closeted, came to m^
attention) from any party function (including socials). This became
clear as early as 1971, when I was asked to urge a comrade from th§
' Young Socialist Alliance, the party's youth group, to leave^a social
at the party convention for being in low drag, I refused; instead,
I danced with him as a sign of solidarity. I subsequently learned ths
he did leave, at the prodding of another gay comrade, more malleable
than I, I am including here a document on transvestism because,
although I do not agree with everything in it, I believe that the
arguments it contains are generally correct. As the discussion
ii
T
rp nor
struggle
'unnlng
inal
lis may
.r
• bour-
?rom the
rerall
locumentf
3ity,
iion
It for
red
:tainly
; our
:ory
ir views
?oach
id the
irty
lope
bell it
developed, it became clear that the arguments used against trans-
Testites were often exactly the same as those used against gays,
Zze section on "dress and decorum" in the leadership's "memorandum"
-rnfirned this.
It is my sincere hope that my publishing of these documents mil
-:-. tribute toward bringing socialist ideas to the gay liberation
--venent and a Marxist approach to gay liberation to the revolutionary
zrvement.
David Thorstad
New York, July 12, 1976
First Printingi July 1976^ 100 copies
Second Printings October 1976^ 100 copies
COITMTS
=11 the -YS VS S¥P by David Thorstad (Gay Liberator, Dece 1974-Jan* 1975)
iilable EZPORT ON MEMBERSHIP POLICY GIVEF TO THE POLITICAL OOFJ^ITTEE
everal
OP THE mrs BY JAOK BAm^SS (Friday, November 13, 1970)
SECTION ON GAY LIBERATION FROM 1971 POLITICAL RESOLUTION-
SECTION ON GAY LIBERATION PROM REPORT ON 1971 POLITICAL
RESOLUTION
•:0TION APXDPTED BY POLITICAL COMMITTEE (May 25, 1971)
INS¥ERS TO SOME QUESTIONS ON GAY LIBERATION by David Thorstad
•MOTION ON GAY LIBERATION M0VEI4ENT PROBE PASSED BY 1971
CONVEITTION OP THE SOCIALIST WORICEES PARTY
■:OTION APPROVED BY S¥P NATIONAL C0MI4ITTEE PLENUM (May 14, 1972)
;ONCERNING THE GAY LIBERATION MOl'EI'IENT AITD THE PARTY'S
ORIENTATION TO IT by Barry Sheppard
[S A PARTY THAT BANS TRANSVESTISM READY FOR GAY LIBERATION?
by Sudie and Geb
JAY LIBERATION AND CLASS STRUGGLE by David Thorstad
. CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION ON GAY LIBERATION by Nat
Wein stein
I REVIEW AND A COMIENT by David Thorstad
i/.SIC QUESTIONS THAT I^IUST BE ANSWERED by John Lauritsen
i COmENT ON OOMR/.DE NAT WEINSTEIN'S CONTRIBUTIOr by Lee Smith
•IISTORY, DOCUI-IENTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE GAY LIBERATION
M0VEI4ENT AND PROPOSED OUTLINES FOR PARTY GAY WORK
ne to my ^y Michael Maggi ■. •
oecame [^ DEFENSE OF MARXISM AGAINST COMRADE WEINSTEIN by John •'
^ "tiie Lauritsen
social ;oNCERNING THE GAY LIBERATION" MOVEMENT AND BARRY SHEPPARD'S
tead, PROPOSED ORIENTATION TO IT by Roland Sheppard
rned tha, CLARIFICATION by Lee Smith
leable
3r.
Lesbian
the
Dve-
2 a
Is,
,-76 pre-
oorting
t
ne
asvest-
Dt be-
SWP
s and
ibera-
ate
e party
exclude
5
8
8
10
11
16
17
17
20
24
34
38
41
43
44
54
58
99
the
n
I
ili
REVOLUTIOMRY POTENTIAL OF GAY LIBERATION DEI4ANDS by Kendall
'Green
THE PARTY'S ORIENTATION TOWARD GAY LIBERATION by George Novack
CONCERNING THE DISCUSSION by Barry Sheppard
THE KEY QUESTIONS IN THIS DISCUSSION by David Thorstad
A STATEI4ENT TO THE PSYCHIATRIC PROFESSION BY GAY LIBERATION
by David Thorstad
A BRIEF COMMENTARY ON AN IMPORTANT ISSUE IN' THIS DISCUSSION .
by Steve Beren
A CIVIL LIBERTIES APPROACH TO GAY LIBERATION IS INSUFFICIENT
by Harry Ring
OUR INTERVENTION by John Lauritsen
NATIONAL COMMITTEE MEI^ORANDUM ON THE GAY LIBERATION MOVMENT
FOR AN INTERVENTION INTO THE GAY LIBERATION STRUGGLE by David
Thorstad and Kendall Green
AN OPEInT letter TO THE PARTY ON THE RESOLUTION " FOR AN
INTERVEITTION INTO THE GAY LIBERATION STRUGGLE" by Steve . ■
Beren, Kendall Green, David Keepnews, John Lauritsen, Lee-
Smith, and David Thorstad
THREE POINTS CONCERNING OUR COUNTERRESOLUTIOF "FOR AN INTER-
VENTION INTO THE GAY LIBERATION" STRUGGLE" by- David Thorstad
and Kendall Green
STATE14ENT ON GAY LIBERATION FROM 1973 POLITICAL RESOLUTION
WHERE THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM ON THE GAY
MOVMENT GOES WRONG by Steve Beren, Kendall Green, David
Keepnews, John Lauritsen, Lee Smith, and David Thorstad
LOOKING BACKYWkRD; THE SlfP AND GAY LIBERATION, 1970-1973
by Lee Smith , ■
WHAT THE DISCUSSION ON THE GAY STRUGGLE HAS REVEALED by Jon
Hillson, Joe Johnson, and Bill Perdue
STATEMENT ON GAY LIBERATION' DISCUSSION by Harry Ring
MAJOR FLAWS IN THE THORSTAD-GREEN RESOLUTION, "FOR AN INTER-
VENTION INTO THE GAY LIBERATION STRUGGLE" by Barry Sheppard
WHY WE MUST TAKE THE CORRECT STANDS ON GAY LIBERATION by John
Lauritsen
LETTER OP RESIGNATION FROM MEMBERSHIP IN THE B]fS by David '•
Thorstad
SWP "ANALYSIS" by David Thorstad (Gay Liberator, Spring 1976)
aLOSSARY OF A FEW TROTSKYIST TERI-IS
60
65
67
72
77
78
79
80
82
.86
-
91
92
92
93
108
115
118
b. 3 A'.'! 3 "TV.-
119
- ; -
123
125
129
130
iv
t
Iby DAVID THORSTAD
[The suthor was a member of the Socialist Worl<ers
Psrty for more than six years. During the psriod
covered by much of this article, he vjas a staff
miter for the party's newspaper. The Militant. He
B presently a member of New York City 's Gay
Activists Alliance. I
Many of my friends in the gay movement have
urged me to teil why I left the Socialist Workers
Party in December 1973. They knew that my
reasons hinged on my differences with the position
the party adopted on gay liberation at its convention
in August 1973, but they wanted to learn the full
ECory of the evolution of the party's position prior
to that convention, and of the role that gays played
ti it. They felt that the gay liberation movement had
sright to know the story, that it should be made
part of the public record. I agree.
j I have three additional reasons for telling the
B&MY now. First, I believe that interest in socialist
beas is on the increase within the gay movement,
■by socialists cannot intelligently respond to this
■piBrest without some awareness of the facts about
B|§SWP discussion, which, although unprecedented
■■III ipe, nevertheless resulted in defeat for those of
■Eiwho put forward a Marxist, historical-materialist
kielysis of the relationship between the struggle for
ksy liberation and the struggle for socialism.
1 Second, considerable confusion exists among
■ms as to what is the Marxist approach to the
■kestion of homosexuality, gay oppression, and gay
■fcration. This confusion is compounded by the
prifasai of socialist groups like the SWP to develop a
BlliECt position on the question. It has even given
■keto the erroneous charge that the SWP is trying to
r*3ks over" the gay movement. In a few cases, this
Icsf^ appears to have come from outright anti-
Ipamunist elements who regard Marxism and gay
■fceiation as incompatible, and who would like to
hqpthe gay movement safely within the confines
■tf capitalist politics by creating an atmosphere in-
Ptojiftabie to socialists. More often, the charge has
come from gays who genuinely wonder what the
SWP is "up to." Further silence on my part can only
help to perpetuate existing confusion.
Finally, gay activists in other countries, who
tend more often to be socialist-minded than is the
rule in the United States, may find the experience
of gays in the SWP instructive in terms of their own
relationships to left-wing parties. i
BACKGROUND
The discussion within the SWP on gay liberation
cannot be understood apart from the historical contexts
that accompanied and immediately preceded it.
Briefly, this means going back to the McCarthyite
witch-hunt of the early 1950s. Joseph McCarthy, like '
other right-wing reactionaries who preceded him,
attempted to link communism and homosexuality;
his campaign was to purge the State Department of
communists and homosexuals, often viewed as
interchangeable species. One of his main arguments
was that homosexuals constituted a "security risk" —
they could be blackmailed into giving state secrets
to enemies, real or imagined, of American capitalism.
So fierce was the anticommunist hysteria whipped
up at the time that all leftist groups faced an attrition
of their membership that threatened their very
existence. Fresh breezes of social criticism would
not make their appearance until more than a decade
later, with the civil rights and peace movements.
Rather than expose and combat the "security risk"
argument, the SWP adopted it. It began, in the late
sixties, to ban homosexuals from party membership
on exactly the same grounds that McCarthy demanded
their exclusion from the State Department; and so it
introduced into the workers' movement one of the
main arguments of the bourgeoisie against homo-
sexuals.
It is ironic, for two reasons, that this argument
was used. First, it ignored the fact that homosexuals
are subject to the risks of blackmail only so long as
they attempt to hide their homosexuality. Yet, by
making homosexuality itself the grounds for ex-
pulsion or denial of membership, the SWP simolv
obliged its homosexual members to continue to
conceal their sexual orientation, thereby increas
not diminisliing, the dangersof blackmail! Seco
the evolution toward an explicit policy bannin-g
from membership occurred at precisely the time
when new winds of social change vjere blowing,
of which was tb develop into the unprece-dents
storm of the gay liberation movement itsei?.
Although the SWP never officially adoptee
position banning gays from membership, in fsrt
such a policy was-applied in some of its brarcHe
in the late sixties. The policy was not adopted
following democratic discussion or vote, but .vas
simply allowed to take shape under the uncntica
eye of leadership and membership alike.
The SWP National Committee first discuss
the exclusion of homosexuals from memberth:p
its plenum of February 27-March 1, 1970. There
the exclusion was presented as a matter of sseuri
designed to,protect the party from victimizatioa
was justified on the same grounds that the use of
illegaj drugs by party members was prohibrted. ^
one challenged either the policy or the srguma
in favor of it. In his report on the plenum to the
New York branch, Ed Shaw, a top party leatJer.
added his own opinion that the party could f»j
be a "hospital" for people who needed thH^jy,
not membership in a revolutionary organOzaiaotL.
spent the next eight months daily rehessinge
resignation speech that I could not braig myseif i
make.
At the suggestion of the SWP leaderMp. tfi
policy was then consciously impiemented inlte
party's youth group, the Young Sociafist AlCaiKX
whose National Committee went so far as to ex-
plicitly adopt such a policy in August 1970L
The SWP was to my knowiedge. the only Ti
skyist party in the world to have such a poiky. /
the policy v/as doomed by its own mner contracB
tions, which became unbearabie with the rise aft
present wave of the gay move.ment in 1969. New
continued on next p
continued from preceding page
young recruits to the Trotskyist movement scoffed at
the policy, and it quicl^ly became an impediment to
recruiting on the campuses, where homospjjuali.ty was
gaining greater abceplanck On November 13, 1970,
the SWP Political Committee decided to abolish it.
. It did so, however, without coming to grips with the
TactthatJhad allowed such a policy to come about in
the first place. It never stated that the policy had
always been wrong; rather, it rejected it on the purely
pragmatic grounds that it "is really not viable in that
it creates more real problems for the party than it
solves."
Inadequate and lacking in self-criticism though
this step was, it was a giant step forward for gays within
the party. It made it possible for us to come out and
take advantage of a new opening to press for more than
mere tolerance, for a truly revolutionary grasp of the
dynamic and potential of the gay liberation struggle,
for a genuine effort to develop a theory of homosexual
oppression and liberation and to link the struggle for
gay liberation to the struggle of the working class for
socialism in a way never before possible in the history
of the working-class movement.
Credit for getting rid. of the policy cannot go to
gays in the party; we were too busy trying to hide our
homosexuality to fight it. Nor can it go to the leader- -
ship that had allowed it to develop behind the backs
of the party ranks. Rather, it must go to the gay
liberation movement itself, which was becoming in-
creasingly noisy and effective. After even capitalist
politicians began to be forced to make statements in
support of gay rights, it became clear to the SWP
leadership that its policy was out of date and had to
be scuttled.
A NEW MOOD
"Elimination of the policy was generally wel-
comed by gay and straight members alike with relief,
and occasionally joy. V-signs were flashed in cor-
ridors. As gays began to come out, they did so in an
atmosphere of exhilaration and excitement, both
personal and political, that everyone seemed to
Share in. Large numbers of "straights" began to
freely discover, and act upon, homosexual tastes that
had been previously unimaginable. For homosexual
members, commitment to socialism took on new--"'
meaning: We began to see it not as something
separate from, or even antagonistic to, our growing
consciousness of oppression, but rather as some-
thing inextricably linked to the struggle for liberation
from a sexual taboo rooted in the needs of class
society. Some of us even understood for the first
time that our initial attraction to the socialist move-
ment had itself been prompted by our indignation at
the injustice of homosexual oppression under capitalist
society.
It was not long before it became obvious that,
with the policy gone, the next step for the party
would have to be to develp a serious political orien-
tation to the gay liberation struggle.
What followed was a brief period during which
a genuine interest was shown by some party leaders
in helping the party to orient itself to the gay move-
ment. The party newspaper. The Militant, tried to
carry articles on gay liberation in each issue. Gay
members began to participate in gay demonstrations
and groups. The party even helped to actively
mobilize support for the statewide demonstration
against antigay laws in Albany, N.Y., on March 14,
1971, and for the sizable and militant gay contingent
in the giant April 21, 1 97 1 , antiwar demonstration in
Washington, D.C. It began to hold public forums on
Marxism and gay liberation. This period lasted from
January through May 1971.
For gays, this was an exhilarating period, during
which we sensed that we were participating in a
historic process of breaking down hostility on the left
to homosexuality, a process that could lead to a
revolutionary socialist party of the working class
championing the demands of one of the most
oppressed layers of capitalist society.
Many gay activists were puzzled by this new
interest in gay liberation. But by and large they wel-
comed it as a sign of the gay movement's potential
for undermining social prejudice and winning new
adherents to its cause. Some were skeptical, however,
and voiced doubt that the process would go very far.
As it turned out, the skeptics were right.
The party's involvement had hardfy begun when
the brakes began to be applied. They were applied in
response to opposition from some party leaders in
the national center in New York and throughout the
country. No significant opposition was expressed
among the rank and file, most of whom seemed
genuinely interested in continuing the: process. .
The braking process took a contradictory, but
not altogether negative, form. It was contradictory
for two reasons. First, divisions existed within the
leadership itself on the question of the party's orien-
tation to gay liberation. And second, although the
leadership as a whole favored a pullback from the
escalating involvement (some temporarily, others
permanently), it had to reckon with a rank and file
for whom a pullback would seem neither desirable
nor justifiable.
-The braking process was not altogether negative
because it was presented not as a pullback (which it
r
Mgc/^iLS f=bP urJiTY
was), but as a step forward — and this made it
possible, for a time, to continue the discussions on
gay liberation, though in a different form. From
now on, the focus shifted from the gay liberation
movement itself to the internal repercussions
within the party stemming from the party's brief in-
volvement. This turning inward was to last for more
than two years.
The pullback took two forms: a May 25, 1371,
decision of the Political Committee that the party
conduct a "probe" of the gay liberation movement
"for the purpose of gathering information"; and
an internal literary discussion of the gay liberation
movement and the party's orientation to it.
THE PROBE
The stated purpose of the "probe" was to gather in-
formation "about the present size of the gay libera-
tion movement, its geographical spread, the history
of its development, the specific nature of the different
gay liberation groups, the demands which have been
raised by the gay liberation organizations, the political
positions of the different currents within the gay
liberation movement, the positions of our opponents
concerning it, and its relationship to the developing
radicalization." Nothing wrong with that — on the
surface. After all, why shouldn't a Marxist party
know the facts about a movement it intended to
participate in? Why shouldn't it know just what it was
getting into?
The problem is that the "probe" had a different
purpose. Most, if not all, of the information it pur-
portedly sought to gather was already known; the
party had, in fact, been conducting a "probe" during
the previous five months, though it didn't call it
that. The real purpose of the "probe" was to place
in firm control a party leadership that, while divided
on the question, was nevertheless increasingly adapting
to tendencies within it that wanted not to get into
the gay movement, but to get out of it. This became
clear at the party convention the following August,
when the "probe" was ended, but no proposal what-
soever for party intervention into the gay movement
was forthcoming from the party leadership!
I was a delegate to that convention. In a gay
workshop, I spoke out against this blatantly irrespon-
sible failure of the leadership to provide leadership.
I said that I could not vote for the motion to end the
"probe" because it contained no perspective for
continuing involvement in gay liberation. Before
the convention vote, however, I was assured by
Barry Sheppard, the leadership's spokesman on the
gay question, that the leadership did not want to
pull back from the gay movement, but to continue
the kind of newspaper coverage, forums, active
support for gay demonstrations, and so on, that had
marked the party's orientation during the first few
, months.of 1971. On. that basis, I urged a.vote fori \-\
the motion, and expressed faith in the leadership. -I 1 1
If I had known then what I knew later, and
even then suspected, I would never have done so. To
his credit, one party leader who knew better, Harry
Ring, refused to vote at all on such a preposterous
motion. Yet even that was a sign of weakness; it
offered no concrete alternative to the do-nothing
approach of the leadership. The pro-intervention
forces had been caught off guard. We had allowed
the center of gravity to shift from the party ranks
to the leadership, which henceforth could call the -
shots on the basis of privy discussion and agreement
at the top, with no input from belov^/, and in com-
plete disregard for the opinions of the gay members
themselves.
THE LITERARY DISCUSSION
The convention also approved a motion from
the National Committee to organize a literary dis-
cussion, "following the convention." The discussion
was to lead to "a decision" by "a plenum of the
National Com.mittee." Most delegates who voted
for this motion probably thought, as I did, that the
discussion would begin soon after the convention.
Actually, it did not begin until May 1972 - nine
months later. And the "decision" of the National
Committee did not come until April 29, 1973 —
nearly one more year later. And it was a rotten
decision — but more on that later.
The literary discussion was fruitful. Nearly
fifty documents were contributed, on a whole
spectrum of topics: antigay laws throught the
world, the relationship between gay liberation and the
class struggle, transvestism, attitudes within the left
toward homosexuality, economic exploitation faced
by gays, the party's increasingly apparent pullback
from the gay movement, the history of the gay move-
ment in the US, the relationship between women's
liberation and gay liberation, the Marxist approach to
the question of sexual oppression and the antihomo.-
sexual taboo, proposals that the party intervene in ■
the gay movement, and proposals that it not
intervene.
This discussion was historic. Never before had
a social ist pa rty engaged i n such a thorough and
creative discussion of the issue of homosexuality
and gay liberation, making the contributions avail-
able to all of its members and co-thinkers on an
international scale. I feel that this discussion should
be regarded as part of the history of the gay liberation
movement. It deserves some day to be published.
The literary discussion served two purposes.
First, it offered the leadership the kind of "cover"
it needed before moving to relegate its earlier position
of active support to gay liberation to a file marked
■ "positions taken but best forgotten."
Second, it further braked party involvement
in the gay movement, while simultaneously giving the
impression that involvement would result from it.
Those who, like myself, wanted such involvement
regarded it as a vehicle for discrediting those who did
'not (all the arguments seemed to be on our side), and
those who did not want any involvement either kept
silent or regarded the discussion as a sign that the
leadership had placed a question mark over involve-
ment.
None of the outright opponents to involvement
in the central party leadership wrote a word in the
discussion. (Their opposition was real, but it
remained "unofficial" because they would not put ■'
it down in black and white for the whole party to
see.) Apparently they felt, correctly as it turned
out, that their opposition had a better chance of
prevailing if they kept silent. So much for demo-
cratic and open debate — heretofore a hallmark of
Bolshevik democracy.
One party leader from San Francisco, Nat
Weinstein, did speak out openly in the literary dis-
cussion against involvement. It is worth capsulizing
the points he made for two reasons. First, the
general reaction they aroused at the time among
the ranks was a mixture of horror and embarrassment.
And second, most of them were to subsequently
find their way into the official position put forward
by the party leadership, and adopted by the 1973
convention.
THE GAY^ LIBERATOR
nal
f
- ^I'.^ln argued that workers, women, and
: - Etionaiities faced more severe oppreasion
'-ism than gays because they had no
- " i.c-nue of escape from overt oppression."
. :n2t the. closet was-a fefuge frcFni oppre'ssion,
---■ s manifestation of it, made a mqckery
jaration movement's appeal to gays to
. _; of the closets and into the streets" — a
; ". first step toward building any. gay move-
-- also mechanically regarded gay liberation
:i a struggle of a fixed behavioral minority
. r^ople") against "psychological oppression,"
-: 1 struggle against en exclusive heterosexual
St stunted the sexuality of everybody, in-
. -; s-traights. And he belittled this struggle as
: -.he "size, weight, force, history, tradition,
'-- e:iona! connection, class connection, etc."
. the struggle of oppressed nationalties for
. ;2rmination.
He warned tfiat too close an indentification
:iy liberation would give the party an
- :: 0 image" and threaten its ability to lead the
»c"--ing class: "Undue emphasis on minor issues
CBT give an organization like ours an exotic image,
c-;-:'jng barriers that cannot be justified by sub-
5?^j3nt historical development." Workers, he
: ~'=d to have discovered, were too tired anyway
:■: ry about sex; he thereby suggested that gay
liberation could only appeal to the upper classes of
society (a stupid rehash of the Stalinist notion that
homosexuality was a product of "bourgeois
ffecadence" or a petty-bout geols phenomenon).
He called upon the party to "cleanly put an
end to this chapter of the party's development."
Yet, he added: "Of course, we sl'tould continue our
position of unconditional support to the struggles
of homosexuals for full democratic rights, including
full civil and human rights, and against all the forms
of discrimination and oppression they suffer under '
capitalism." With "support" like that who needs
opponents?
The central leadership proceeded throughout
subsequent discussions to give the impression that
ft rejected Weinstein'sb'arbai'id point'-of View." Yst '
St the same time, it knew that. he was also speaking
for some top party leaders themselves, who preferred
to hide behind a cloak of official silence. And so,
v^hen it finally reached its long-awaited "decision"
on gay liberation ten months later, it incorporated
much of Vi/einstein's "analysis" into what it called
a "fv/lemorandum on the Gay Liberation Movement,"
approved on April 29, 1973, and published in May.
THE 1973 DEBATE
Everything came to a head with the precon-
vention discussion prior to the August 1973 con-
vention/ By now it had become clear that it
might be necessary for the pro-gay liberation forces
to organii-^e an open strugcjle against the party leader-
ship. And when the leadership finally published its
memorandum, that is what we did.
THEMEMORAMDUI\/i . ^ .
The memorandum was a repository of contra-
dictions, vague formulations, and outright intimida-
tion. It was intended to justify both the party's
earlier position of supporting gay liberation and the
puliback from that position. It contained things that
were good, and things that were bad. It provided
something for just about everybody; those who
wanted the party to participate in gay liberation
could vote for it because it held out the faint
possibility of participation (though without the
correct analysis), and those who opposed participation
could vote for it because it nowhere specifically called
for participation. It was a wretched document.
The SWP appears unwilling to publish it, or
even to report its contents to the readers of its news-
paper, and for good reason: it would stir up such a
storm of criticism within the gay movement that the
party would no longer be able to pose as the "uncon-
ditional" supporter of gay liberation that it claims to
be. Yet the fact that it has not been published makes
it difficult to discuss it at any length in this article.
Briefly, here is what it said.
1. It reaffirmed a position of "unconditional
support to the struggles of homosexuals for full
democialic rights, including foil civil and human
rights, and against all the forms of discrimination and
oppression they suffer under capitalism." This looks
good on paper, and It is a step forward from the days
when gays were banned from membership. But in
the absence of any perspective for conctetely demon-
strating the professed "support," it does not go
very far. Since the 1973 convention, the party's
"support" to gay liberation has tended to be little
more than an occasional repetition of this position
in some of its election propaganda.
2. It rejected "all forms of bourgeois prejudice
against gay people," Including the notion that gays
are sick, but added that "the party does not and
should not take a stand on the nature or value of
homosexuality." This last point involved an implicit
rejection of the slogan "Gay is Good" (which has
subsequently been stricken from the party's vocabu-
lary) and of scientific evidence, which unquestionably
shows that homosexual behavior is a natural form of
human sexuality. Two reasons were advanced for
refusing to take such a stand.
First, it warned that to do so might jeopardize
the effectiveness of the party as a political organiza-
tion and alienate it from the masses: "to do so would
cut across its purpose, dilute its nature as a political
organization, transform It into an organization ad-
vancing one or another scientific or cultural view-
point, narrow its appeal, and cripple its ability to
mobilize the masses on political questions." lis gay
liberation, then, not a political question?) This
represented a catering to backward elements within
the party leadership and an adaptation to the
supposed bigotry of the masses of working people
(a genteel reformulation of the idea that "workers
hate queers"). It Is a case of the so-called vanguard
following, not leading, the masses. Principle bit the
dust here in favor of pragmatism.
Second, it asserted that "especially concerning
homosexuality, little is known, and it is difficult to
as'ceftam what is objectively based and what represents
prejudice in what knowledge is available." This is
nonsense on two accounts; Quite a bit Is known
about the nature of homosexual behavior (certainly
enough to state that it is in no way inferior to or
less natural than heterosexual behavior), and it is
not at all difficult to ascertain v*/hat is prejudice
and what is not. (Gays, at least, are very good at
doing so.) But the assertion blatantly contradicts
The Memorandum states:
e that "the party dons not and should
not take a stand on the nature of homo-
sexuality."
e that gay liberation lacks "social weight."
e a warning egainst "exotic" forms of
dress and decorum.
• that aK-women's functions he organiz-
ed such that they "do not present an
image that they are restricted to les-
bians."
*This is a three-fnonth period of ora! and written discussion
that precedes conventions within Bolshevik organizations.
During this: period, every member has a right to have any
document, on any topic relevant to party activity, published
and circulated to the entire membership, at party expense.
Proposals for party activity in the future are debated and
voted upon in every party unit.
the previously stated rejection of "all forms of
bourgeois prejudice." How can you reject prejudice
when you cannot be sure that it is prejudice? Rather
than attempt to explain away this contradiction, the
leadership chose to ignore it.
There was another contradiction here. In one
breath, the nnemorandum claimed to reject the
notion that gays were mentally ill, yet in the next
breath it refused to take a "stand" on the nature
of homosexuality. By saying that homosexuality was
not a mental IMness, however, it hadalready taken
a stand on the very subject it proposed not to take
any stand on! A case, indeed, of having your cake
and eating it too. Needless to say, it was not
possible to take seriously a document of this sort.
3. After situatfng the gay movement in its
historic context, and characterizing it as "progressive"
and "in the interests of socialism," the memorandum
went on to belittle the potential of the gay struggle
by asserting that it relates to a "relatively narrow-
sector of the population," that it tacks the "potential
mass" and "social weight" of movements like the. : .
w/omen's iiberalion and black liberation movements,
and that it is "rffuch more peripheral to the centra!
issues of the class struggle" than those movements.
Since the SWP is a serious party, it could not waste
time on "peripheral" issues, and gay liberation
would therefore merit a low prloity in the 0arty's
work and program. Since the SV\'P is a sniall party,
with limited forces, it would be a mistake to
"generally assign comrades to this movement,"
Instead, it proposed to "support" gay liberation
"mainly in our propaganda."
The predictable effect of this has been to
gradually pull the fev*' party members involved in gay
groups out of them on the grounds that they were
needed elsev^here ~ presumably to work on the
"central issues" of the class struggle. This
process has, in fact, been going on since the con-
vention, and accounts for the party's present absterv '
tlon from gay liberation. In addition, the party's " '
propaganda has less and less to say about gay libera-
tion. Its newspaper, for instance, hardly even carries
news coverage of the gay struggle, let alone any kind
of in-depth or theoretical material relevant to it;
the SWP has nothing to offer in this area. Its mem-
bers are therefore increasingly isolated from the gay
■movement, which has the dobious advantage of
taking the heat off a leadership that behavesasthough
it v/ished the gay movement would go away and leave
it alone. It can always argue that if its newspaper
carries next to nothing on gay liberation, It must be
because the gay movement is doing next to nothing;
this argument might sound plausible to a member-
ship whose only source of information on the gay
movement is the party's newspaper.
4, The memorandum concluded with an
outrageous and intimidating section warning against
"exotic" forms of dress and decorum, and insisting
that all-women's functions "be organized In such a
way that they do not project an image that the
function Is in reality restricted to lesbians." It im-
plied that gays tend toward freaky appearance
(presumabiy unlike 'Straight males, whose.sometimes..
robot-like behavior fias always struck me 3s being
downright weird), and that if they are too blatant
they would give the party an "exotic" image. This
section was an insult to gays.
As a kind of postscript, it proposed no special
point on the convention agenda on gay liberation,
even though the part/ had been discussing it for more
than tvi/o and a half years, and was now coming to a
decison on what the party's relationship to the gay
movement should be.
The pro-gay liberation forces subjected this
memorandum to a devastating, point-by-poInt crit'oue,
but there is not space enough in this aiticle to go into
it. In a nutshell, the memorandum had two basic
flaws.
First, it reduced the gay liberation struggle to a
struggle for gay riglits; it refused to see it as a struggle
against the exclusive heterosexual norm of capitalist
society, as a struggle for a society in which the sup-
pressed homosexual potential of everybody could be
liberated. Rather, it conceived of gay liberation as a
struggle by a fixed social minority, called "gay people/'
for greater tolerance by a presumed heterosexual
majority. It thus refused to approach the question
of gay oppression and liberation from a historical-
materialist point of view, which would have necessi-
tated an analysis of the origins of the antihomosexua!
taboo. It preferred to suspend judgment on v*'hether
homosexuality was some kind of historical abberation
that might dissppear in the socialist society of the
future {a position privately voiced by certain leaders).
At best, this position amounts to a purely reformist
grasp of the dynamics of gay liberation. At worst, it
represents a complete rejection of the Marxist
approach and a capitulation to prejudice.
Second, the memorandum v^as not honest.
While claiming to hold open the door to possible
party participation in the gay movement (albeit with
an incorrect program and analysis). It failed to provide
any perspective for such participation, and in fact laid
the groundwork for abstention from it.
continued on page 13
THEGAYLieeRATOR
..J
:3 in
<:ie^
Am
SWP, continued from page 3
COUNTERRESOLUTION
Pro-gay liberation forces in the party submitted
' a counterresolution, which focused the discussion on
the real issues. We traced the recent history and
scope of the gay movement on a national and inter-
national scale, and provided a concrete description of
- the issues it raised and the struggles it had engaged in
(against sodomy laws, for equal rights legislation,
." tor campus recognition, against police harassment,
■ against oppression by the psychiatric profession,
forcing politicians to express support for its demands,
etc). We explained the concept of gay pride and the
slogan "Gay is Good" os a rejection of the "myths
society uses to justify and perpetuate its efforts to
suppress homosexuality." These myths, we stated,
"range from the theological notion that homosex-
uality is 'unnatural,' to the Stalinist-inspired view
that it is a product of 'bourgeois decadence' (or the
'variation that it is a product ot class society), to the
various 'theories' of bourgeois psychiatrists that
homosexuality is an illness."
We analyzed the relationship between the
struggle for gay liberation and the struggle to replace
.. . capitalism with a truly free society. In a key section.
we rejected the notion that "gay people" constitute
a spocici variety of human being, and noted: "The
ultimate impact and appeal of the gay liberation
movement con only be understood on the basis of
the fact that it involves a struggle not merely for the
rights of a presently constituted minority who are
defined as gay, but for an end to the built-in need
of capitalist society to suppress homosexual behavior
in all of its members. Homosexual oppression is re-
flected not only in the discrimination and persecution
directed against persons who are either known or
suspected to be gay, but also in the pervasive efforts
of capitalist society to completely suppress homo-
sexuality even before it may arise, and to threaten
violators with severe reprisals both in this world and
the next. The effects of this oppression are felt on a
far wider scale than merely among those who admit,
whether to themselves or publicly, to being gay."
We proposed that the party "intervene in and
champion the struggle for gay liberation." We gave
concrete examples of the kinds of things the party
could do. And we proposed that rt assign members to
help build the gay liberation movement "in accord
with our overall program and campaigns, including
our full support to, and championing of, the struggle
tor gay liberation."
We demanded a separate point on the con-
vention agenda to allow for a full discussion of the -.
issues.
Our counterresolution v^as debated throughout
the party and won considerable support. The majority
of at least two party branches voted for it at the end
of their local preconvention discussion. One party
leader who had recently come out also supported it.
Seven delegates, I believe, voted for it. But the
leadership, by refusing to allow a separate point on *
the agenda for discussion of the question, succeeded
inrelgating it to a side issue and prevented anywhere
near an adequate debate. It lost, and the SWP was
stuck v;ith a position on gay liberation that is so
contradictory and embarrassing that it does not dare
publish it.
This decision was loo bad because it will only
make more difficult the necessary task of bringing
socialist consciousness to the gay liberation move-
ment, and of winning the working class to a correct
understanding of the relationship between its historic
interests and the struggle against the sexual oppressio-
of capitalist society.
Following the 1073 SWP discussion, it became
clear to me that I could make a greater contribution
to this historic task by leaving the SWP than I could
by remaining in it. Time alone will tell whether or
not the SWP can correct the error it made in August
1973. The first step would be to throw its
- - memorandum into the nearest trashcan. . D
THE GAY LIBERATOR
REPORT ON MEMBERSHIP POLICY GIVEN TO THE POLITICAL
COMMITTEE OF THE SWP BY JACK BARNES, FRIDAY
NOVEMBER 13, 1970
the early 1960s the party and YSA have been
ag toward a policy which proscribes homosexuals
membership. This was mentioned in the organiza-
report to the February 1970 SWP plenum. The
Son of this policy was summarized as part of the
aizational report which was adopted by the August
YSA plenum. This report was printed in the Sep-
■ 2, 1970, Young Socialist Organizer.
main purpose of this policy was the protection
&e party now and in the future from the effects of
or extralegal victimization and blackmail of homo-
lal members.
Administrative Committee believes that this policy
^wrong. It doesn't accomplish its purpose and it breeds
blems and misinterpretations both internally and pub-
-. In so doing it shifts attention from the central ques-
1-- - in all membership policies and decisions— the seciirity
E:he party, its growth by recruitment from the mass
zvement, its capacity for disciplined activity in all pe-
rc'is, and its political homogeneity.
'Most homosexual organizations have described the prob-
is and oppression that homosexuals face in capitaiist
iety. These problems ra!5ge from the threat of physical
acks to the invocation of archaic and reactionary legal
!des concerning sexual behavior, .to occupational ex-
dusion, the threat of blackmail, housing problems, and
'arious forms of psychological oppression and social
•ressure. All of these are very real problems that homo-
cops, black IT
and which can
and suscepti-
uals face to one degree or another
ead to conflicts with Ihi
liiity to pressures of all kinds.
Another thing which the homosexual organizations point
t is that because of the depth and intensity of social
iressure and prejudice, the psychological pressure on
--omosexuals is such lliat a hom.osexual usually Poes
...rough personal, secual crises in which she or he be-
:omes obsessed— to the detriment of other aspects of her
;r his life— with the problem of finding any fulfilling
iex life under these conditions and in this society.
In the past experience of the party, this aspect of the
IL'e of a hom.osexual has led to membership problems.
ihat is, some homo.sexual comrades reached the stage
in a personal crisis, in which being a member of our
kmd of political organization and being able to throw
herself or himself into the work of the party became dif-
ficult or impossible. Under these conditions they often
tried one way or another, directly or indirectly, to change
the character of the parly into some form of therapeutic
organLzatton which would help solve the personal prob-
lems of the individuaJ homosocual. We've had several
experiences like this. What happened under these circum-
stances in the past v/as that a leading comrade in the
area had discussions with the homosexual comrade fac-
ing such difficulties. No one can remember a single in-
stance where there was ultimately any problem in such
a person understanding through discussion thai the b.est
course would be to become a sympathizer or move away
from the party. Quite often instances of this sort involved
ighout
najority
e end
irty
ted it.
: on *
eded
^here
.'as
dare
inly
ig
e-
ect
toric
Ession
3me
ion
J Id
people moving away from organized revolutionary po-
litical life. Such a person can't handle his or her personal
development to the degree that she or he can be enough
of a stable, disciplined party member whose basic ful-
fillment comes from political activity as a disciplined mem-
ber of a combat party. Needless to say, this type of prob-
lem is not limited to homosexual comrades. We also have
homosexual comrades for whom this question has never
come up. Their personal lives, regardless of the problems
and pressures that were entailed, did not conflict with
party membership. ...
As we have discussed this question informally, everyone
agreed that we must put the discussion of our policy
in the context of the changing objective situation. First,
there is the change in cittitude::, that is gradually evolving
in this country. There's no question that the general ac-
ceptance of different norms of personal behavior has in-
creased. This has reflections in the legal sphere. One state,
Illinois, has abolished all penalties for homosexual acts
between consenting adults. Other state legislatures are
discussing it.
In the last election tlie two main New York state can-
didates of the Democratic Party and one of the candidates
for the Republican Parly- Goldberg, Ottinger and Good-
ell— all came out with public statements endorsing what
was in essence a Bill of Eights for homosexuals, demand-
ing that they be treated like other citizens., that their pri-
vate lives be their own and not be subject to legal or
police restraint as long as they don't damage the rights
of other people. Quite a few other candidates made state-
ments—Wahn sky, and several of the congressional can-
didates. This is the first time comrades can remember
that major bourgeois candidates did this. The fact that
they did take such a stand in the midst of an election
campaign says a lot about the changing attitudes in so-
ciety as a whole.
^ There are a number of cases now at various levels of
the federoJ court system demanding rights for homo-
sexuals. Legal fights against entrapment laws and en-
trapment practices have been successful in several states
and municipalities. A homosexual in Connecticut is fight-
ing to get a driver's license v/hich has been denied him
because of his conviction for sodom.y. This case is being
handled not by a small group of radical lawyers, but
by the Connecticut ACLU. And this legal test, like others,
is being reported objectively and favorably in papers
like The New York Times.
One characteristic of the radicalization itself, especially
in the youth movetnent, has been discussion about sex.
Adolescents have ail kinds of social restrictions put upon
them concerning their private lives, and especially their
se.K lives. The way they're treated in the schools, under
the lav/, etc. has become an issue among radicalizing
youth. So there's a widespread and growing opposition
in very broad layers of young people in this country
5
against sexual repression and the enforced mutilation
of sexuality.
This has been reinforced by the rise of the women's
liberation movement, which has been even more intimately
concerned with repression of homosexuals. This is true
because one of the central questions faced by the women's
movement is the question of sexual oppression. In addi-
tion to their class, race or national oppression, women
are especially oppressed as a sex. Comrades are familiar
with the many things which the women's liberation move-
ment has done to draw attention to this — the publicity
campaigns, the propaganda and educational materials
that have been written by various activists in the women's
liberation movement against the objectification of sex,
against the exploitation of sexual relations, against the
reactionary and debilitating sexual norms and pressures
of society, against the possessive and compulsive sexual
relations bred by this system. They see that the social
attitudes toward homosexuals are simply another facet
of a sick sexist racist class society. From the beginning
a certain number of women's liberation activists and lead-
ers have publicly identified themselves as homosexuals
or bisexuals. And more and more the women's liberation
movement has recognized the reactionary character of
lesbian-baiting and the threat it poses to the movement
if capitulated to.
Finally we have growing numbers of public political
and social organizations of homosexuals, something that
is unique in American history. Beginning in 1968 and
early 1969 and undoubtedly sparked by the general rad-
icalization and reinforced by the rise of the women's lib-
eration movements, we saw across the country the pro-
liferation of homosexual and homosexual rights organi-
zations. It's probably not an exaggeration to say that
almost every major campus in this country has either
a homosexual rights organization or an organization
of militant homosexuals demanding their rights, demand-
ing an end to all discrimination, demanding a scientific
and objective view of homosexuals as human beings.
It's become the norm, as opposed to being unusual, for
contingents of the more militant and more open homo-
sexual groups to march in various protest demonstra-
tions in addition to organizing some of their own.
This all takes place in the post-Kinsey period. For
the first time, scientific knowledge of the extent of homo-
sexuality, and the characteristics of homosexuality has
become widespread. This has helped in breaking down
the stereotype of society divided into exclusively homo-
sexual and exclusively heterosexual people. The fact that
individual human beings go through different periods
in their lives, with different characteristics to their sexuality,
has become more widely known. The fact that homo-
sexuality of one kind or another is widespread in the
population, that it cuts through all geographicEil and
class layers, has been established.
There has also been the experience, the growing body
of literature available and the evolution in the under-
standing of the younger generation. The younger gen-
eration has begun to differentiate between sexuality and
reproduction, sexuality and religious norms, sexuality
and the sex-roles imposed by the nuclear family system,
and has begun to understand the relation between sex-
uality and class society. For this generation, opposition
to resti'ictive norms and repressive attitudes that feed reac-
tionary ideologies has become the norm.
We had been evolving toward a policy of blanket pro-
scription of homosexuals from membership in the party.
The faults of this policy are several. One is general en-
forceability.
The more we thought about it the more we realized
we were not enforcing this policy and we could not en-
force this policy. Maybe one of the ways to look at this
is to compare it to our policy on narcotics and mari-
juana, use of which is incompatible with party member-
ship. We have this blanket policy for a variety of rea-
sons the comrades know, including the chance of vic-
timization and frame-ups, of which there's been a whole
record of experience in the radical movement, and the
hatred of many of the oppressed of this country for the
narcotics trade. We've had a firm and clear policy on
this question, which we've enforced. When we know of,
have evidence of, or even hear rumors of the use of ma- ■
rijuana in the organization, we look into it. If it's true I
we tell the comrades they have to knock it off, we ex-
plain why and say they must comply with this rule or
leave the organization. We've done this consistently and
even-handedly. It's not been arbitrary, it has not been '
tongue-in-cheek, and it has not basically been handled
one way in one locality and a different way in another.
If our policy was to be the blanket proscription of homo-
sexuals from membership in the SWP, we would have
to enforce such a policy in the way vje enforce the nar-
cotics policy.
It is a policy that can easily be misused. If it's really
going to be a policy, it %vouldbe the obligation of branch
organizers and executive committees to check into the
sexual predilection of prospective members, if one is sup-
posed to proscribe a certain sexual category -from mem-
bership. It doesn't take much imagination to think of
the negative results of this practice.
If we do not carry out and enforce the policy uniformly,
an additional problem comes up. That is, it becomes
known that tliere is a policy of the party that is not en-
forced uniformly. If tlie policy is not enforced at all, then
it appears that the leadership supports the policy only
tongue-in-cheek. That v/ould be a default of leadership.
If it is enforced, but not uniformly and consistently, there
would be the suspicion that the leadership was being
arbitrary. Why pick this one and not that one? Over
a time, this would raise the question of the leadership's
fairness in carrying out other general policies.
Our tradition, the tradition of the revolutionary move-
ment, has been that the private lives, the psychological
and cultured views, and the sexual behavior of individual
comrades is basically their own business. There's been
a general tolerance within the movement, as opposed to
a society which in general is very intolerant of anything
that's different or threatens its morals and norms. At the
same time, the party is not responsible for what members
do as private individuals and does not take responsibility
for their private conduct. While minimizing interferenci
in or responsibility for the private lives of members, theit
private conduct and their personal demeanor must b(
subordinated to the needs of the party as a whole. If i
person's private life became damaging to the party th
individual is asked to leave the party. As I outlined earlie
the party's security, its capacity to recruit militants fror
the mass movement, political homogeneity, and its capai
■alized
ot en-
it this
mari-
Tiber-
f rca-
f vic-
vhole
i the
r the
y on
' of, .
ma- '
true
ex-
i or
and
een
Ued
ler.
no-
ive
ar-
disciplined action always comes first.
ing the homosexual question per se aside, we oc-
aily have comrades who go through periods where
simply are not in control of themselves personally
r ihologically. We sometimes have to ask them to
:r find a way out of the party for them at a cer-
: ige. The same is true with comrades who get on
-■::ck and decide they are proselytes whose mission
; -t the party on trial or to turn the party into some-
:-.c;r_, than; a- rev^oiutionary. socialist combat party.
-.i-.idual revolutionaries are very interested in cul-
sit, sex and the evolution of social norms. But we
always remember that the party's role is political.
defined by its purpose and the strength of its ene-
First and foremost is the organization and recruit-
r. -s-i from the mass movement of a com.bat party that
a political program for the defeat of the capitalist
A large number of questions of art, cultural norms,
etc., are not really within the field of party policy
■;." As long as we in fact apply the materialist meth-
our analysis there is plenty of room for divergences
, ./;:on. It is a very good idea to have a little tolerance
ich others' views on these matters.
e party is a political, not a therapeutic, organization.
: revolutionaries get their personal satisfaction from
: standing and working to change this society, we
;: accept members nor do we keep members ulti-
- because it is good for them. We recruit members
■.,0 keep members because it is good for the party.
Any sort of blanket membership proscription of homo-
sesuals cannot remain and has not re.raained an internal
question in the SWP. In several cities, we've been pub-
licly attacked or asked to clarify our position on homo-
sexual membership. The comrades have responded to
such attacks or questions with leaflets and public state-
ments which show the difficulty of trying to explain to
non-members the reasons for a blanket proscription of ho-
mosexuals. Secondly, such statements have shown the dis-
comfort our members feel in trying to carry out this pol-
icy. It raises a whole series of concrete problems within
the wom.en's liberation movement: problems of recruit-
ment, of hidden red-baiting in the form of slander, of
misinterpretation. There's no question' that the member-
ship of our movement is in its overwhelming majority
uncomfortable with such a policy. We see all the evidence
of that. Of course we also know that with some newer
m.embers this is for the wrong reasons. It takes a little
while for members, especially new members, to actually
come to an understanding of what a revolutionary party
is and what it cannot be.
But more is involved than misunderstanding by. new
members. What is really involved is an uncomfortable-
ness with a policy which is really not viable m that it
creates more real problems for the party than it solves.
So the conclusion the Administrative Committee has
come to is that we should reject this evolution toward
a policy of proscription of homosexual members per se
and continue the actual practice which has basically been
the pojty's policy on this type of question for some time.
That is, we will continue to deal on an individual basis
with any homosexual comrade or any other comrade who
because of a personal crisis or personal demeanor, more
and more finds her or his personal Life in conflict ivith
disciplined functioning in the party or in conflict with
the kind of a pai-ty that can recruit out of the mass rnove-
m.ent, that is going to become a mass party. And secondly,
of course, we will continue to take into account the char-
acter and personal demeanor of anyone who applied
for membership. We always have. But a generoJ policy
of proscription of homosexuals is incorrect.
(The followinp- is the section on gay liberation from Perspectives
and Lessons of the New Radicalizatlon, the National Committee Draft
Political Resolution," adopted March l4, 1971.)
As the radicalizatlon has deepened, other issues have been raised ^
and new movements have come forward: the revulsion against capitalism s
destruction of our environment and the ecological system on which ttie
life of humanity depends, the development of radicalism among tne
laymen and clergy of the Catholic Church, the prison revolcs, the
increasing radicalizatlon inside the army, the gay liberation movement
against the legal and extra-legal oppression of homosexuals. _ The
radicalizatlon has llke^fise had big repercussions in professional,
cultural and artistic circles. lo^/n v,.^ o r!if-fnrpn +
The wave of prison revolts that erupted in 1970 had a different
quality from the protests that historically are endemAc to prison li.e.
mt was to be seen in the conduct of the Black and f ^^^;^° ^^^f .1^^^-
erships of these revolts. The prisoners who have led and participated
in these struggles consciously see themselves as ^i?-^^^^"^. J^%°^,^.^,^„
and racial bias of American justice. They are inspired b^^ the revolu-
tionary literature they read and the examples f^t by figures like
Malcolm X and George JaclcSon. The essence of f ^f . J^^^"^^.f ^J^^'°^
and judicial reforms has been an affirmation of their dignity and
humanity. The recognition by most young ^^-^^f^^^ °^.^^^4^^^°? jf ^|th
gles as part of the movement and their sympathy and iden oificatlon wltn
their demands is a further gauge of the radicalizationo ,„+^p<,tq
As with prisoners, bourgeois society views homosexuals as outcastSo
The gay liberatioi movement has raised a series of demands against
the way hoLiexuals are treated by bourgeois society. These incluae
insistence on equality before the law^llke other ll'^l^T'.l' at trlf ^
riP-hts in all respects; that their private lives be their o>"^»_^i^ee
,?rS legal or police restraint; against police entrapment practices;
for their acceptance as equals in all spheres of social Hie.
The gay liberation movement was strongly influenced by the opposi^
tion o? tbe women's liberation movement to the commercial exploitation
of sex, the reduction of sex to something other than a free human re-
lation the reactionary and stifling sexual norms of bourgeois society,
and ?he psychological distortions of sexuality in a class society based
oS the nSciear flmily system.- The women's movement began to see that
?he antagonistic attitudes towards homosexuals are simply another facet
"' 'one1ha?acfer?stfc'of the radicalizatlon is the g^^^^j^f °/P°f J^/^
among very broad layers of young people against sex-ual oppression of
any kind. This has been reinforced by the women's and the gay libera-
tion movements.
imut
(The foi: owing is the section on gay liberation from Report to the
^S\rtlogIl committee Plenum^_the_m:aftPol^^
■■PersDectiW5"iHd"L¥i^^^5:Fof ihe liT^illoalizaj^ion _ by Ja^^^
The general line of this report was approved March 14, 19(1.)
We're seeing two things in this radicalizatlon which are occurring
m a quite different way than in the Russian Revolution. George
NovLk made the point yesterday that it took the ^^hrfry Revolution-
Trotsky said that if it had done nothing else it would have been
totally iustifled by this alone— to awaken and bring into struggle xne
o?pfesLd nationalities in Russia. And it took the victory of the
October Revolution with the workers coming to power under the
8
t
liiiership of the Bolshevilcs to begin raising and grappling with some
-he problems that are being raised today for example hj the women's
eration movement and the demand for ;]ust treatment of homosexuals
forward by the gay liberation moYeriient»
In this radlcalization we are seeing the rise of the self-conscious
•aggie and organization of America's oppressed nationalities and the
"ieginnings of movements whose demands are so deep that they can only
i^ begun to be met by a workers state-^and we are seeing this 2£?'2£
tc the large-scale participation b;/ the working class in the radical™
-:-tion, let alone a revolutionary upsurge^ And the questions of
. - "'.enation; of the hierarchical relationships necessary to capitalist
- :-iety which foster and rationalize oppression based on class, race^
---, age, etc^i of who controls one^3 life and work— all being raised
- - -ne or another different raovenient—become generalized and begin
z-zozxrxi
the consciousness of the entire population including the
class that
a"l "'''^ -Ci .""i "f" '! ~' ;■
f8.ce all these probleras;
'n'e also see a process occurring which is iraportant in any radical-*
.tion and can eventually be a key factor leading to a revolutionar;/
;uation» That is the gradual decay of the moral authority of the
.ers, their spokesmen,, and their institutions, and the shift of that
^ori
1 the process of struggle^ in the eyes of growing numbers
people, from the rulers, their spokesmen and apologists^
the
ients fighting against the evil;
capitalism. This is one of
-.-5 important characteristics and effects of things like the broaden-
ing radlcalization in the army^ the rebellions in the prisons, the
rise of the gay liberation movementj, the deepening of the women's
liberation struggles the pride of the iriilitants of the oppressed
nationalities^
The Cubans saidj In the SjBcond De_cJ.an:airLon_of Jlavana,, *'For this
great mass of humanity has said, ''"enoughP trnd has "begun to march.,"
.hat captures part of the spirit of this radlcalization. There is no
layer too oppressed, too prejudiced against, too repressed, too
denigrated as an outcast by capitalist society to stand up^ to assert
-hs-t they be treated as fully human » that the quality of life they
live be improved. This /unerlcan capitalism cannot grant,
I want to say a few words here about the gay liberation movemento
Jit the YSA convention the comrades had an initial discussion of the gay
liberation movement and have begun, in various locals^ to find out
-ore information about it, and to support actions that oppose and
expose the anti-democratio repressive laws against gay people^ Frankj
in the youth report^ will outline this further. I don't need to add
anything to what the resolution said about the objective importance
of the gay liberation movement or the incapacity of our opponents to
come -to grips with movements like this as revolutionists.
:i jiiij-'itifH
!:■) .5a:-:oita/: v^n
nayi!HT!^i. v'oitoi'
MOTION ADOPTED BY POLITICAL COMMITTEE
' ' May 25, 1971 ' ,. . /
liol
1) That the party conduct a probe of the gay liberation
movement for the purpose of gathering information. The
information sought includes facts about the present size
of the gay liberation movement, its geographical spread,
the history of its development, the specific nature of the
different gay liberation groups, the demands which have
been raised by the gay liberation organizations, the po-
litical positions of the different currents within the gay
liberation movement, the positions of our opponents con-
cerning it, and its relationship to the developing radi-
calization.
2) The probe will be conducted within the framework
of the party's unconditional support to the struggles of
homosexuals for civil and human rights against the dis-
crimination and oppression they suffer under capitalism.
However, steps taken for the purposes of this probe do
not signify setting in motion at this time a process of
party fractional intervention based on a defined strategic
and tactical orientation in the gay liberation movement.
The purpose of this probe is solely to gather the nec-
essary information about gay liberation formations and
actions so that the party can then determine its policy
toward them.
3) The party branches are responsible for carrying
out this probe in their areas. The decisions on how to
do this in each case mu-st be made in light of the overall
personnel situation and the responsibility of the branch
to carry out the major activities of the party.
In cases where there are openly gay comrades, indi-
divuals can be assigned to attend meetings and partic-
ipate in selected activities of different gay liberation or-
ganizations and ad hoc formations as part of this probe.
However, these comrades should not be assigned to this
probe on any premise that in their particular case such
an assignment should automatically have priority over
other party tasks.
Homosexual comrades have joined or will join the SWP
on the same basis that anyone else joins the SWP, on
the basis of acceptance of our full program and agree-
ment to loyally build the SWP and help to carry out
its decisions in all spheres of party work. Conversely,
the party as a whole has the responsibility to see that
a homosexual comrade, like any other comrade, is in-
tegrated in a rounded way in party life and activities.
The deepgoing personal consequences for anyone to
openly declare themselves to be homosexual emphasizes
the importance of the fact that the question of whether
or not a homosexual comrade decides to so declare him-
self or herself is a personal decision. No pressure from
the party should be placed on any comrade either for
or against them openly declaring themselves as gay.
4) This probe will be carried out in collaboration with
the YSA, which has initiated similar action. It is to be
conducted under the supervision of the Administrative
Committee. All reports, results and questions concerning
this probe should be addressed to the Administrative Com-
mittee.
i
ft
r
10
19, ITo,
ANSWERS TO SOME QUESTIONS ON GAY LIBERATION
by David Thorstad
12) Upper West Side Branch, New York Local _
£
*re two kinds of questions about homosexuality
Terarion that one encounters in ourmovement.
;:-l3 a genuine concern about the character
^ ;f the gay liberation movement, its potential
.n:o a mass movement with a revolutionary
i_-.d the extent to which the revolutionaiy party
:ern itself with this movement. Our probe and
- t . lui the gay liberation movement will help
_" i-;ese questions.
-d comes from comrades who are hostile to
.nvolvement in gay liberation because of prej-
^cause of a general failure to grasp the rad-
;rboth.
_ .ving is not meant to discuss all of these ques-
::nly some of the most common. Botii because
_ :-:o, and for reasons of convenience, both kinds
■;gether.
HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THEIR OWN THING
:NG AS THEY DON'T CRAM IT DOWN MY
Di r:= case of some straights, gay liberation may have
:i rrammed down their tiiroat. That is up to them.
:an overcome v/hat prejudice they have long
to tliink objectively about homosexuality and
eration, tliis will probably not be necessary. But
■:ow irrationality and emotionalism to dominate
.-, d of vision, then there will be no alternative.
-I-is 'let tliem do their own tiling" notion misses
-. of what gay liberation is all about. It reflects
:-J.. not a revolutionary, grasp of the question.
while it is true that the acquisition of our civil lib-
the right to be who we are— is an important as-
of the struggle for gay liberation, it is not tlie most
iamental one.
e essential tlirust of gay liberation is not merely to
from straight society the right to express our sexual
tation without being ridiculed, beat up and mur-
without losing our jobs and friends, and without
No. It also involves a struggle for sexual libera-
1 It ultimately aims at liberating tiie sexuality of every-
from the restrictions and puritanism of American
aiist society.
ese sexual norms, from which both gays and straights
a\--e to be freed, are heterosexual.
According to Kinsey and other auUiorities on sexuality,
-ery human being is born with a general sexual capacity
ich includes both the heterosexual and the homosexual.
other words, the capacity for homosexual behavior
;ists in nature and is as much a part of the basic human
al capacity as heterosexual behavior. (This, inciden-
y, is the meaning of the slogan "2, 4, 6, 8 — Gay is
St as Good as Straight.") It is society— not any inborn
aracteristic— that subsequendy determines the predom-
ance of heterosexuality or homosexuality in an individ-
The fact that homosexual behavior is absent from
le lives of most Americans does not prove tlie superiority
cf hetcfosexuaJity but merely demonstrates the success
with which society has instilled its own v/arned se;<;ual
norms in people.
In our society, unlike most other human societies, the
only acceptable sexual norm is one of exclusive hetero-
sexuality. Our society condemns all homosexual behavior,
in all ages and in eiUier sex. The fact that this norm
has nothing whatever to do wit'n real human sexual po-
tential,, but even represents a distortion of that potential,
does not prevent it from being enforced in ways tliat
inflict great suffering on individucd human beings and
immeasurable loss to society through wasted human po-
tential. And Uie fact that tins noim is violated by mil-
lions of Americans merely emphasizes die degree to which
it is out of tune with the reality of human sexuality.
One of the strongest implements society uses to mould
tlie growing child into the acceptable social forms and
to keep people there as adults is the coercion to behave
like a member of one's own sex (to be a real man, to
be really feminine). Anyone who deviates from these norms
is quickly labeled "queer."
These sex stereotypes and definitions not only have
nothing to do v/ith real human potential; Uiey are also
refle-ctions of the social needs of the dominant, hetero-
sexual, capitalist society, and they change as those needs
change. Witli the rise of entrepreneurial capitalism, for
instance, tlie rugged individual was the ideal— at least
the male ideal. Today there are no more entrepreneurs
to speak of and the rugged individual image is no longer
useful. In today's consumer society, it is not people with
initiative who are needed, but ratlier people who lack
it, people who follow orders — whetlier it is buying de-
tergent or killing the enerny in Vietnam, or hating homc-
sejcuaJs. In a technologically advanced, complex stage
of imperialism, the male ideal is the astronaut, the mech-
anized, unthinking robot.
"^These images change for women too. During the sec-
ond world war, when tlie capitalists needed to tap tlie
reserve army of labor to which women belong, tlie image
projected for women was not that of today's happy house-
wife, content with the socially useless and unrewarding
labor of a home-centered life. No woman today who
refuses to play dumb and pretend that she likes being
denied the opportunity to develop as a free human being,
independent of a man, will for long escape die accusa-
tion that she too is "queer."
These sex stereotypes are used not only to sell the prod-
ucts of a consumer society. They are used to keep peo-
le in line. If you spend all your energy trj'ing to conform
to this society's warped and rigid definitions of a "real
man" and a "real woman"— and both straights and clo-
seted gays spend enormous amounts of energy doing
precisely that— then you will have none left for the strug-
gle to overthrow the society that imposes those definitions
on you.
Many straights can be appealed to to support gay libera-
tion precisely because it will help break down diese rigid
sex definitions. You don't have to be gay to understand
that gay liberation will also help free you from the com-
pulsion to prove your masculinity or to be truly "fem-
inine." And so, in the process of achieving their freedom
to be gay, gay people will be helping to liberate straights
too.
But tills liberation will go deeper than the shedding of
role playing and sex stereotyping. It ultimately involves
11 .
sexua! liberation in general: freedom to develop and ex-
press one's sexua] orientation without social constraints;
freedom to relate to persons of the same or opposite sex
as human beings, not as objects or tools; freeing of tlie
capacity for homosexual love which the heterosexual norm
in our society is designed to root out.
Does this mean that in supporting gay liberation we
should also support the idea of proselytizing to homo-
sexuality? Not at all. That would be artificial and coer-
cive. (This is why, in my opinion, a slogan like "Hey,
Hey, What Do You Say? Try It Once The Otlier Way"
is incorrect— no matter how generous it may seem to
ask straights to try it our way once when every insti-
tution of straight society has been marshalled to force
us to confonn to a norm of exclusive heterosexuality. )
To tliose who wish to "come out" or "go gay," fine. But
while being gay has its blessings, it is no panacea for
I difficulties of heterosexuality in a society that is predi-
I cated on distorting a// human relationships— whetlier they
I be gay or straight. Full sexual freedom will come only
1 1 with the replacement of that society witli socialism.
I THE RISE OF THE GAY LIBERATION MOVEMENT
|, MAY REFLECT THE DEPTH OF THE CURRENT
I' RADICALIZATION, BUT THE RELATIONSHIP OF
I THE MOVEMENT TO THE RADICALIZATION IS ES-
I SENTIALLY A PERIPHERAL ONE.
i The gay liberation movement is as much a part of
^ the radicalization as any other movement. It is not some-
I thing on tlie fringes of the radicalization. Rather, it is
I the logical outgrowth of that radicalization, which not
I only draws ever new social layers into struggle, but which
t also provides for considerable political cross-pollination
I between different movements. Some of the organizers of
I fee gay liberation movement learned what skills tliey
ihave in the antiwar movement; many lesbians were ac-
tive in tlie women's liberation movement from the very
start and are today involved in both it and the gay wom-
I en's movement.
I If the gay liberation movement was later than some
I others in coming on the scene, its impact is still far from
having been felt. When tlie full unpact of gay liberation
is felt, when the antihomosexual influence of our social
institutions has been dispelled and tlieir structure trans-
fonned, when the sex-typing that herds people into mu-
tually exclusive categories of "real men" and "real wom-
en," heterosexual and homosexual, normal and abnormal
is overcome, it won't be so easy to find people clahning
that the struggle for gay liberation has played a "periph-
eral" role.
The central issue being raised by the gay liberation
movement is also tlie central one for otlier movements:
the right to control our own destiny. Those who believe
that control over one's body is not as important as con-
trol over the means of production are poorly posing
the problem. Both are miportant and both are related.
Both involve a struggle to take the control over tlie de-
cisions that affect our lives out of tlie hands of tlie cap-
italist ruling class and put it into the hands of the op-
pressed. Neither will be achieved as long as this capitalist
society is allowed to continue to exist.
The dynamics of the current radicalization are such
111 at
il
IS
a growing awareness of oppression in one area,
and the determination to struggle against it, lead logically
to the realization that something is wrong with society
as a whole. While it is true that in the case of gay libera
tion some goals, such as the elimination of tlie sex laws
can certainly be achieved under capitalism (and UieL
achievement will give added impetus to the movement)
homosexual liberation cannot be. It can only be achievei
with the fundamental transformation of this society.
Perhaps the idea that the gay liberation movement
a relatively unimportant one is based on the assumption"^
that it cannot appeal to vei-j' large numbers of peopla)'^'
Such an assumption would be unwarranted. The ga; '
liberation movement has the potential to appeal to an
involve in action very large numbers, and in this wa;
too it has much to contribute to the radicalization. ^
Kinsey's statistics are taken as reliable (and, if anything,
they are too low), tliere are around 10 million American
men and between 2 and 6 million women who are more
or less exclusively gay. This is not a small minority.
Maiions more (46 percent of American males) recognize
in themselves or act upon erotic responses to persons
of the same sex. There is no reason to doubt that a large
number of these people can be brought into action by
the gay liberation movement.
And when they are, they will not be timid in putting
forward their demands for liberation. The realization that '
what you thought was your own personal hang-up was
really a hang-up of straight society, and tlie discoverj' .
of the sheer numerical magnitude of people who are gay
and thus suffer the same oppression, are sufficient in them-
selves to produce an explosive rage in gay people. The
revolutionarj' movement would be foolish not to recognize
and welcome this.
The movement for gay liberation not only has tlie po-
tential to involve large numbers, but it cuts into one of
the deepest-going prejudices society uses to divide and
isolate people, to render tlieni docile, fearful and sub-
servient to those in power. An indication of the depth
of this prejudice is the fact that it exists to the extent it
does even witliin the revolutionarj' party. I doubt if mis-
ogyny and racism were ever as widespread in our move-
ment as the prejudice against homosaxuality. Tliis prej-
udice is so pei-\'asive in our society that gay people are
not safe even in gay ghettos. In Greenwich Village—
probably the largest gay ghetto in the world— gays can
still be beaten up for as innocent an act as holding hands
on the street.
The gay liberation movement cuts across the lines of
sex, color and class as does no other movement, except ."
the antiwar movement. And it is raising an issue about
which nobody can remain completely indifferent.
To the extent that the free development and expression
of sexuality is an important factor in the lives of all hu-
man beings, and to the degree that the elimination o:
sex typing will be necessaiy to achieve this, gay libera-
tion has a role to play in the liberation of e\'eryone.
whether gay or straight. For without liberation from the
restrictions on sexuality imposed by class society, it is
impossible to talk about the liberation of humanity.
The gay liberation movement has added a whole nev,
and potentially powerful sector to the growing list of
oppressed" groups struggling for liberation. Revolution-
aries need no better reason to welcome it. Can a move-
ment, after all, that in barely two years has grown from
a handful of timid reformists into a movement with groups
on hundreds of U. S. campuses, and that is spreading
to otlier countries— England, Sweden, France, Italy, Cana-
12
- : N'etherlands; that cuts into the heart of the puritan-
: irrationality of American society; that has the
ai.^;: for involving millions of men and women; tliat
opted mass demonstrations as a natural vehicle
juncing its intentions and goals; that is compell-
;appraisal of se:xuality, which affects everyone and
ression of which forms an integral part of the
ive apparatus of class society; that cannot achieve
toal of sexual emancipation without the emancipa-
-umanity as a whole — can such a movement
-yarded as a "peripheral" one to the stmggle for so-
im? Not in the least.
LIBERATION ALIENATES BLACKS AND
fORKERS. IT IS ALSO PETTY-BOURGEOIS.
.ITiis revelation is usually brought to our attention by
rades who are opposed to our movement support-
g gay liberation, though tliey may not always frankly
it it. It is never, to my knowledge, expressed with
less at the bigotry of the alleged Blacks and workers
o would be alienated by gay liberation, or even of
e at file prospect of yet anotlier .question about which
olutionists will have to do a bit of educating. No.
„ - *^ usually viewed by those who e:<press it as an ar-
^j^ ^ "? f-ment against the revolutionary pai+y having anytiiing
fc do with gay liberation.
Now, it is a w;3Ll-known fact that fr-equenOy— thouffh
overv 1 i ! .1 , -1 J o-
^ remaps not aiways— those who are most upset about
,^^^ - mosejaioJity in public are closet queens (or straights
^' orho are unable to accept homosexual feelings in them-
_ ^ L--lves). But tills is a personal matler, one which has
■gnize J., j.g^2 interest for a political discussion, except that un-
firtunately tlie Uvo sometimes do overlap. Having men-
-rned the personal, however, let's dwell on the political.
Would our support to gay liberation alienate Blacks
md woi-kers? Quite possibly it might eJienate some
• -lough not all) stxaight Blacks and straight workers,
i-liough the response of gay Blacks and gay workers
might be quite tlie opposite. But this, of course, is hardly
tie point. Those v.-ho raise tlii.13 objection are not really
;jncerned eAout alienating Blacks and workers; rather,
cey have somehow persuaded tliemselves fliat hornosex-
cality is a phenomenon limited to a smaJl section of
iT/hite) society— the petty-bourgeoisie and tjie upper class.
This conviction, however, is not based on any knowledge
-'the subject except the most vulgar and personal.
Homosexuality is a phenomenon that exists in all so-
clsJ classes and in ail races. If anything, according to
Xinaey's statistics, it is more common arnong the work-
ing class tlian among other classes.
I Yet, suppose it were true tliat foe SWP's support to
gay liberation would eJienate it from Blacks and workers
^t tlieir present level of consciousness. V/ould that justify
pirning our backs on this movement? Hardly. Ilie same
argument could be used against virtually any other ob-
j«:tive or movement which revolutionary socialists sup-
jport.
• Most v/orkers and Blacks, and even most petty-bour-
geois, in the United States do not rejoice at the idea that
some day the United States will go socialist. Yet, social-
ism is a goal to which revolutionists rvaxiain committed,
and the gap between their consciousness and that of the
nasses does not prompt them to despair of ever win-
ning Cie masses to that same commitment. On the con-
:rary, It spurs them to analyze and apply experience in
e po-
ne of
and
sub-
iepth
mt it
mis-
ove-
prej-
are
?e—
can
.nds
s of
:ept
out
on
lU-
of
ra-
le,
he
is
such a way as to be able to help raise the level of con-
sciousness to the point where it will no longer be neces-
sary to merely explain the need for socialism but to ac-
tually lead the masses in the struggle to bring it about.
And what about our support to Black liberation? Is
it not ti-ue that the majority of white workers are to some
extent racist? When we put out literature explaining why
white workers should support Black power, have we lost
our contact with the masses of white workers? (After all,
the reasons why v^hite workers should support Black
power are far from self-evident to large numbers of tliose
white workers; and Blacks, moreover, constitute a mi-
nority of only around 10 percent of tlie population.)
Tae answer, of course, is no. We understand bhe impor-
tance of fighting the racist prejudices of American .so-
ciety and explaining the political dynamism of Black
liberation.
And women's liberation? Did we hesitate to support
the liberation of women because most American males
would not automatically v/elcorne it? Or because it was
"petty-bourgeois"? WhJJe the idea may have occurred to
some comrades, the party had no trouble rejecting it
And what about the demand for immediate withdrawal
from Vietnam? Did we fight for this danand because it
was tlirown into our laps by the American people or
because the masses of Americans supported the NLF
victory tliat would result from the carrying out of this
demand? To ask the question is to answer it.
Now, after all tliese movements, you would tliink that
comrades would have learned soraething fibout the re-
lationship of tlie radicalization to developing mass move-
ments against oppression and the relationship of the rev-
olutionary party to both. You would think that Qiose who
doubt the importance of gay liberation to the coming
American socialist re'/olution would at least exhibit some
modesty in questioning its importance. Alas, tliis is not
always tlie case Some comrades plujige into the fray
Willi both hands and both feet and no head. One cannot
help but suspect that comrades who resort to the specious
argument that our support to gay liberation will alienate
us from Blacks and workers are sirnply using tliJs al-
lef
v/ardness.
:ea prejudice as a smokescreen for tlieir own back-
GAY WORKERS AND GAY BLACKS WILL NOT BE
DRAWN INTO MASS ACTION AS GAYS BUT ON THE
BASIS OF THEIR OPPRESSION AS WORKERS OR
AS MEJ.IBERS OF AN OPPRESSED NATIONAL MI-
NORITY.
This statement reveals a mechanical approach to the
radicaiisation. Just as the gay liberation movement is
itself a product of the radicalization, so it too will have
an mipact on other sectors of society already affected
by that radicalization, such as the Afro-American or the
trade union movements. Precisely v/hat forms that im-
pact will take, of course, it is not possible to say. But
tiiere is no reason why gay workers should not be rad-
icalized around tlieir oppression as gays (for many gay
activists, this is already tlie case). And what is to pre-
vent gay workers from organizing therasdves and mov-
ing into political action not just as Vsforkers, and not just
as gays, but as gay loorkers? Or gay Blacks as gay
Blacks? Nothing. This is a dialectical question, not one
to be approached in a linear fashion.
Many people who are gay, including v/orkera, may
13
ncs'cr come out, that is, fully disclose their sexual ori-
entation in public. Yet even tliose who stay in their closets
may very well be inspired by the gay liberation move-
incnt to greater combativity in other areas— as Blacks,
as Chicanos, as workers, as women, as opponents of
the war, etc.
THL TERM "STRAIGHT" SHOULD NOT BE USED
TO DESIGNATE HETEROSEXUALS BECAUSE IT IS
A PUT-DOWN.
While it is true that the term "straight" is sometimes
used to mean other tilings than the heterosexual equivalent
of "gay" (such as square, clean-cut, not hip, etc.), this is
not what is meant when it is used by gay people. For
gays it means someone who is not gay.
"Straight" is an objective and accurate term. It means
simply someone whose sexual activity is exclusively hetero-
sexual and thus conforms to the socially acceptable norms
of sexual behavior.
It is not a put-down of heterosexually oriented persons.
It is not, for example, a gay equivalent of the term
"honky." It is true Oiat the kind of emotional polariza-
tion that would occur inside a revolutionary organization
if Afro-American comrades referred to white comrades
as "honkies" would be intolerable. Use of the term
"straight," however, is not at all comparable.
A parallel might exist if Afro- Americans had spent years
of their lives referring to themselves as honkies, trying
to pass for honkies, striving to be better honkies tlian
the honkies tliemselves. This is precisely what straight
society has compelled gay people to do for centuries.
When gay people use the word "straight," we are not using
epithets. We are referring to a state of sejcuality with which
we are quite fgimiliar. We are referring to our own past
experience. If straight comrades are upset by the fact
Uiat v/e have rejected the exclusive heterosexual nomis
to which tliey adhere, that is their problem, not ours.
These norms are set by heterosexual society, not by
gay people. People who feel comfortable following those
norms should, of course, be free to do so. But gay peo-
ple, who reject tliose norms, should be able to designate
such persons with a heterosexual equivalent of the term
"gay," without being obliged to always fall back on the
clinical word "heterosexual" or the awkward construct
"non-gay."
HOMOSEXUAL SEDUCTION POSES A THREAT TO
MINORS.
Homosexuals are no more prone to seduce minors than
are heterosexuals. The very existence of the notion tliat
homosexuals are "chUd molesters" is nothing more than
the product of the antihomosexual prejudice of our so-
ciety. Preposterous though this notion is, it is used to
exclude homosexuals from professions, like teaching,
where they are in close contact with children.
Perhaps the most striking, and disappointing, example
of the persistence of the notion that homosexuals contam-
inate children is the fact that the First National Congress
on Education and Culture in Havana April 23-30 re-
sorted to it as a justification for the proposal to relocate
gays from cultural fields into "other organizations" where
lliey v/ill not "have any direct influence on our youth. . . ."
There is no scientific proof that seduction, whetlier homo-
sexual or heterosexual, has anytliing to do with the de-
velopment of an exclusive sexual orientation of eitlier
kind. Many people's first sexual experience is heterosexual,
not homosexual, and it is sometimes the result of seduc-'
tion. This does not prevent some from developing a pre-
dominantly homosexual orientation. Most, of course, gc
on to maintain an exclusively heterosexual sex life, bu
no one attributes this to the fact that tJieir first sexua
experience was heterosexual. There is no reason to think
that this process is any different in the case of persons
whose first sexual encounter is homosexual. The factors
that go into determining sexual orientation are far too
complex to be reduced to a matter of seduction.
This is not an esoteric question, but one that our movc^
ment wUl eventually have to deal with. It is linked to the
general sex-repressiveness of our society, reflected in the
absurd idea that one's sexual life should not begin before
adulthood or marriage. And it is tied up with the sex
laws and the age of majority.
In European countries where homosexual acts are no;
illegal between consenting adults, they are often illegal
between minors or between an adult and a minor. In
addition, the age of consent varies and is often lower
for heterosexual acts tlian for homosexual acts. Further-
more, even where homosexual acts are legal between con-
senting adults, ■ as in the Netherlands, gangs of minors]
have been known to seduce adult homosexuals as a way
of extorting money from them.
In the U. S., where homosexual acts are illegal in near-
ly every state under all circumstances (exceptions; Illinois,
Connecticut and Idaho), a primarj' goal should be to
wipe all the restrictive sex legislation off the books. In|
the meantime, comrades should be careful not to giv
the impression that revolutionists are for legalizing horn
sexual acts between consenting adults, but that we do no
recognize the right of young people under 21 to discove
and express their sexuality with the same freedom as
eveiybody else.
The notion tliat homosexual seduction turns people intoj
homosexuals is actually nothing more than a variation
of the old "prairie fire" view of homosexuality. According!
to this view, homosexuality is so much fun that if it is
not kept under control it will spread and may even re-
place heterosexuality. Such views are mystical.
EVERYBODY'S SEXUALITY IS DISTORTED UNDE
CLASS SOCIETY, BUT UNDER SOCIALISM, PEOPLE
WILL BE BISEXUAL.
I don't think it is possible to dispute tlie contention tha:
everybody's sexuality is distorted underclass society. Thr
idea that under socialism everybody wUl be bisexu^
however, is a different matter.
It seems to me that any claim for socialism in the are;
of sexuality that goes beyond the idea that it will penr.
the free development and expression of sexuality is rasi
It is rash because there has never been a socialist socie";
and we are not crystal ball gazers.
It is true that we do know a few things about has:;
human sexual capacity. And it might seem at first glar.;:
that admitting a basic sexual capacity that provides f::
both heterosexual and homosexual behavior would imp.
a bisexual expression of those capacities in a society w;l
out sexual restraints. Such a conclusion seems to me to : ■
unwarranted. While simultaneous sexual relations w;_
persons of the same and of the opposite sex may be ti
rule under socialism, other possibUities exist In any cs;-
it is quite likely that sex under socialism will bear vc
E
14
t
osex
if seduc-
'^ a pre
Jrse, f:;
life, b-u
t sexu^
to Ihir..-
person;
factor.-
far toe
move-i
: to the?
in the
before
the sex
resemblance psychically or physically to sex as we
it under class society.
-I7ER0SEXUALITY REALLY IS BETTER THAN
- ..'/OSEXUALITY.
rr.eral false notions lurk beneath the surface of this
i im ent.
The idea that homosexuality is a distorted expression
isual behavior that occurs when heterosexuality is not
^:-^ed to develop freely (as, for instance, in class so-
■asy). The fact, however, is that homosexuality is no
aaore a distorted aspect of sexual behavior under class
•Dciety than is heterosexuality. And while it may be re-
ii^jring to some heterosexuals to believe that human
:i-r.gs are basically heterosexual, there is no scientific
•r- -dence whatsoever to back up such a belief.
2 J The idea that human beings are physically equipped
far heterosex but not for homosex. According to this
fcieological view, a penis was designed to go into a va-
pna and consequently heterosexuality is superior to (and
Eore natural than) homosexuality. This is the prevailing
-lew in our society.
It has two weaknesses. First, it ignores tlie practice of
:_-er kinds of heterosexual behavior than genital inter-
::urse (such as oral-genital and anal sex). Second, it
ijsumes that the physical structure of the human body,
-;: the degree of pleasure or imagination involved, de-
ennines the enjoyment of sex. (People who resort to tliis
■jolish argument thus find themselves in the absurd posi-
\:n not only of passing judgment on a form of sexuality
-i'ii which they are unfamiliar, but of trying to explain
--y heterosexual sex is fun despite the fact that a man's
■:zest is not built to receive a woman's brsastSa )
3) The idea that homosexuality is a product of decay-
ing societies. Tliis idea can be traced— at least in tlae case
:;■ people on the left who use it— to the triumph of Stalin-
-im in the Soviet Union and the subsequent institution of
laws persecuting homosexuality in 1934 (the early Bol-
ilieviks wiped the czarist laws against homosexuality off
•_-e books after the 1917 revolution). The myth (never
explained, only asserted) that homosexuoJity is a "product
;: decaying capitalism" is still the line pushed by the Stal-
inists, including the American Communist Party (as re-
cently as in the January 1971 issue of Political Affairs).
It is sometimes embellished with tiie claim thathomosexual-
:n,- goes hand in hand with fascism.
First, on fascism. Tens of thousands of gay people
perished in Hitler's concentration camps, marked for death
'.vith the special Nazi insignia for gays — a pink triangle.
There is no more reason to associate homosexuality with
fascism than there is heterosexuality. To do so is notliing
more tlian a fancy way for left-wing bigots to dress up
their antihomosexual prejudice.
Second, homosexual behavior has played a role in
human societies since the beginning of human society.
It has been present— as has heterosexual behavior — in
societies during their peak of creativity (Hellenic Greece)
and during periods of decline (Ancient Rome). It occurs
in primitive communistic societies (American Indians),
advanced capitalist societies, and in societies that have
abolished capitalism.
Homosexual behavior, like heterosexual behavior, oc-
curs in every species of mammal that has ever been studied
in any detail.
Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, brings joy and it
brings sorrows. It is no better and no worse than hetero-
sexuality. It just IS.
GAY LIBERATION DOES NOT POSE A THREAT TO
THE BOURGEOISIE. IT IS REFORMIST, NOT REV-
OLUTIONARY. AFTER ALL, EVEN SOME BOUR-
GEOIS ARE GAY.
This statement confuses two things. First, it confuses
homosexuality with gay liberation. True, some bourgeois
are gay; being gay is not in and of itself revolutionary
(though it is more hazardous than being straight in a
society that finds no way to integrate homosexuality in a
positive way). The struggle to achieve gay liberation,
however, like the struggle for women's liberation, is rev-
olutionary. It, like the struggle for women's liberation,
may attract some members of the bourgeoisie to its ranks,
but til at will be their contradiction, not ours.
Second, this statement confuses gay liberation with the
mere acquisition of our civil liberties. But gay liberation
involves more than that. It views gay liberation as an
isolated phenomenon, and faUs to recognize that it is an
integral part of a deep wave of radicalization.
Gay liberation involves a struggle to eliminate the op-
pression of homosexuals, which is used to help maintain
a society based on male supremacy, the subjugation of
women, and private property. It involves the transforma-
tion of the institutions by which society implements that
oppression. Foremost among these are the family, the
schools and religion.
The nuclear family is the first instihition most human
beings encounter, and it is the one in which antihomosex-
ual prejudice is first instilled in people. It is there that we
learn the sex roles and sex stereotypes and the possessive-
ness that distort personal relationships in a male suprema-
cist, heterosexual, capitalist society. H is there that we
learn sexucil repression, for the patriarchal family is an
institution that is designed not to protect the free develop-
ment of sexuality but to prevent it
This is all reinforced in the educational system. Not only
will the demand for gay studies undoubtedly be raised
in the course of tlie struggle to transform the schools, but
the pseudo-scientific quackery about homosexuality that is
now passed on in certain fields (psychology, medicine,
sociology) wUl have to go. Sex education in the schools
must entail a rational, scientifically sound and positive
presentation of homosexualitj', whether it be in the colleges
or in high school or in grade schooL
The Christian church has been one of the most tenacious
and damaging persecutors of homosexuality. There are
still today millions of human beings whose sexuality is
distorted and whose lives are infused with profound g-uilt
because of the superstition and antLhomosexuality of the
church. The fact that some reformist gays here and there
have chosen to set up gay churches rather than reject a
religion whose holy books and history merit the contempt
of homosexuals may add to the difficulties of the church
in a period of radicalization but it does not make religion
less an enemy of gay liberation.
The family, the schools and religion are not the only
institutions in capitalist society that play a role in the
oppression of homosexuals and which gay liberation wUl
help to change. Otliers are the police, the courts, the mass
media, marriage, and psychiatry.
Homosexual oppression is very closely tied up with tlie
oppression of women, and so will be the liberation of both
15
I
gays and women. While there are differences between these
two struggles and tlie oppression they fight (women are
also oppressed as part of the resei-ve army of labor, for
instance), they also have much in common.
The origins of the development of tlie oppression of
women can be traced to the origin of the nuclear famUy
and the rise of class society. While this also appears to
be the source of the oppression of gay people, not nearly
as much is known about it yet as is known about the
development of the oppression of women. Still, a hint of
the common origins of the oppression of women and
homosexuals can be detected in the altitude toward male
sodomy in societies tliat, like our own, attempt to sup-
press homosexuality.
The popular view of male sodomy is that it is degrad-
ing—at least to the participant in the so-called "passive
role." Why is it considered degrading? Because it is al-
legedly dirty? No, for that would not explain tlie wide-
spread occurrence of heterosexual sodomy. It is considered
degrading because in a male supremacist society, there
no lower rank to which a male can stoop tlian to imiti
the position of a woman in heterostxual coitus. In soi
societies that had slavery (such as ancient Egypt), defeai
enemies were often sodomized by the victors in what rrn
have at least partially been not just for fun but as a wi
of humiliating the conquered.
This passive-active stereotype of sexual intercourse sa
as much about the degradation of women in class socit
and in the heterosexual sex act as it does about the c
pression of male homosexuals.
The struggle for gay liberation is revolutionary not or.
because it aims at the heart of tlie sex-repressive instiu.
tions of this society. It is also revolutionary because!
will break down one of the most effective barriers whid
society uses to foster in people a lack of confidence
their ability to control their lives. Revolutions are
made without such confidence, and gay liberation c
help restore it to millions.
June 20, 1971
MOTION ON GAY LIBERATION MOVEMENT PROBE
PASSED BY 1971 CONVENTION OF THE SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY
1) To approve the memorandum on membership pol-
icy adopted by the Political Committee on November
13, 1970.
2) To reaffirm the party's position, stated in the Po-
litical Committee motion of May 25, 1971, of uncondi-
tional support to the struggles of homosexuals for full
democratic rights including full civil and human rights,
and against all the forms of discrimination and oppres^
sion they suffer under capitalism.
3) To end the information gathering probe of the ga-
liberation movement initiated by the Political Committe-
onMay25, 1971.
4) To authorize the National Committee to organize, fo!-
lowing the convention, an internal party literary discus-
sion of the gay liberation movement and the party's ori-
entation to it, leading to a decision by a plenum of the
National Committee.
<'
II
16
-. . I. .-.:• ■■ '■■■■ ■■■■A-. ■■■
MOTION APPROVED BY SWP NATIONAL
COMMITTEE PLENUM
The following motion was approved by the National
Ckacmittee at its plenum, May 14, 1972.
(a) To open immediately foUov/ing the plenum an in-
■^raaJ party literary discussion, for a three-month period,
«f ihe gay liberation movement and the party's orien-
tation to it, leading to a decision by the subsequent plenum
of the National Committee;
(b) To authorize the incoming Political Committee to
allow a limited extension of the discussion period if prac-
tical circumstances require.
(Vol. 30, No, 1)
CONCERNING THE GAY LIBERATION MOVEMENT
AND THE PARTY'S ORIENTATION TO IT
.- . ' by Barry Sheppard
I
The purpose of tliis article is to help initiate the internal
Tirr^" literary discussion of the gay liberation movement
i-i the party's orientation to it The first part contains
j;~e comments on the oppression of gay people. The
:- ;:.d part is an outhne of the development of the gay
e ration movement, as far as I know it. The third sec-
1::: presents my opinion on what the party's orienta-
-. :n to this movement should be at the present time.
Various gay liberation and homosexual rights organi-
xations have described the kind of oppression that homo-
sexuals face in the United States. (See David Thorstad's
irr:de in the April 16, 1971, issue of The Militant.) One
iip2ct of tills oppression is the existence of reactionary
= -d archaic laws against homosexual acts. While these
.;-^ s cannot be enforced on a large scale in the popula-
.;.- as a whole, they are used to selectively victimize
riv people. The existence of these laws also sets the stage
:;r the police and others to victimize gays in other ways,
from entrapment to blackmail.
Known homosexuals face discrimination in employment.
There are many employers who will not employ known
or suspected gay people. Known gay people also face
housing discrimination. In addition to these and other
overt forms of discrimination, gay people also are sub-
ject to a special psychological oppression, resulting from
the deep social prejudice against them.
Why does this oppression of gay people exist? Gays
ire not a class, with a special relation to the means of
production, nor an oppressed nationality, nor do they
play a special role in the family or any other social struc-
ture. There is not a precise analogy, therefore, between
tlie oppression of gays and the oppression of workers,
oppressed nationalities or women. For example, the roots
of the oppression of women lie in tlie development of the
family structure in the rise of class society, which assigns
a subordinate role to v/omen within that structure and
within society. Discrimination against women in other
spheres is a result and extension of the subordinate role
of women within the family structure. Prejudice against
women is part of the ideological and moral justifications
of the subordinate role of women in society, just as anti-
Black prejudice and racism are part of the ideological
and moral justifications of the oppression of Blacks as
a na-tionalitj'.
The prejudice against gay people, however, is not a
direct result of a subordinate social role played by gay
people— gay people play no special social role. This prej-
udice is directed against people whose sole distinction is
that they engage in or have a preference for certain kinds
of sexual acts. It is rooted in and flows from the tradi-
tional sexual morality, which disapproves of those acts
and the people who engage in them. This traditional
sexual morality itself is a product of the nuclear family
system; it consists of guidelines of sexual conduct which
help preserve the nuclear family relationships in class
society.
Leaving aside all discussion about why homosexual
impulses exist, or why a section of the population prefers
homosexuality, which need not concern us in trying to
understand the nature of the oppression of gay people,
the prejudice against homosexual acts and gay people is
17
a by-product of the traditional sexual morality, which
is the emotional and ideological glue helping hold the
nuclear family together.
The discrimination against gay people, in turn, is a
result of this prejudice, prejudice that is ultimately de-
rived from that social structure known as the family -
itself a product of class society.
The prejudice against gay people is inculcated -hand
in hand with the compulsive sexual morality of the fam-
ily system -by parents, religion, the schools, the law,
quack psychiatry. This prejudice is manifested not only
in the more obvious and even violent ways, as m the
cases of physical attacks upon gay people by cops and
others It also results in a range of psychological op-
pression-from difficulties in finding a fulfilling personal
life to feelings of shame and guilt on the part of gay
people. There is a fear of exposure and an attempt to
hide their identity on the part of most gay people. This
is a fear of not only what could be done against them
by their employers or by the courts or police, but it is
also a fear of social ostracism.
The struggle against the oppression of gay people is
basically a democratic struggle. The motion on the gay
liberation movement probe adopted by the 1971 SWP
convention included the following point: "To reaffirm the
party's position, stated in the Political Committee mo-
tion of May 25, 1971, of unconditional support to the
struggles of homosexuals for full democratic rights, in-
cluding full civil and human rights, and against all the
forms of discrimination and oppression they suffer under
capitalism." This summation of the party's position on
the oppression of homosexuals is essentially correct m
my opinion, and should be maintained.
There have been two discernible phases in the rise of
the gay liberation movement. In the 1950s, two organi-
zations developed and were most prominent, the Daugh-
ters of Bilitis and the Mattachine Society, which attempted
to educate people about the issue of the discrimination
against homosexuals. They engaged in activities such
as speaking before various groups and lobbying to change
some of the discriminatory laws.
A new phase began in the later 1960s, and developed
rapidly especially during the fall of 1969 and the spring
of 1970, with the rise of what has been called the gay
liberation movement. The gay liberation movement is
an aspect of the current radicalization and developed
out of it. It has tended to make a much more radical
critique of society than the previously existing homosex-
ual rights organizations did, although the development
of the gay liberation movement has had an impact on
both the Daughters of Bilitis and the Mattachine Society
and has partially transformed these organizations in cer-
tain areas.
There are a number of factors which prepared the way
for the development of the gay liberation movement.
First, there have been changes in the prevailing atti-
tudes on homosexuality in society as a whole, together
with changes in prevailing views on sexuality in gen-
eral. While the prejudices remain, and they are deep,
a more tolerant attitude towards homosexuals has de-
veloped. At bottom, this reflects a loosening of the hold
of compulsory sexual morality that has accompanied
•^- ''• — ---
the growing crisis of the nuclear family.
These changes towards more tolerant attitudes concern-
ing homosexuals have been evident in the cultural and
information media in various ways, in the fact that there
have been changes in the laws (in one state) and cer-
tain governmental administrative directives against aspects
of the discrimination against gay people, and even in state-
ments by some bourgeois candidates. There have been
a greater number of legal challenges to aspects of dis-
crimination against gay people. This shift in attitudes
has provided an atmosphere in which such a movement
could develop.
The development of more tolerant attitudes towards
homosexuals has been most pronounced among radical-
ized young people. One aspect of the youth radicalization
has been a widespread and growing questioning of re-
pressive sexual morality. This critical attitude towards
traditional morality undermines the ideological basis of
the prejudice against gay people.
Under the impact of movements such as the Black lib-
eration struggle and the women's liberation movement,
radicalizing young people have begun to reject any dis-
crimination against people for their physical or sexual
characteristics. For many in this generation, opposition
to the traditional repressive sexual morality and to dis-
crimination based upon sexual characteristics is becoming
the norm. This trend among the youth was remforced
by the rise of the women's liberation movement.
The women's movement itself is concerned with sexual
oppression, as women are oppressed as a sex. The lit-
erature of the women's movement has analyzed and ex:
posed the objectification of sex and the debiUtating and
reactionary character of traditional sexual morality, and
the distortion of sexuality in capitalist society. The Marx-
ist theory of the origin, structure and role of the family
as the basis of the oppression of women has become
much more widely accepted. In this context, many in
the women's movement have begun to see the prejudice
towards homosexuals as another facet of sexist oppres-
sion.
The %vomen's movement not only helped pave the way
for the rise of the gay liberation movement on the plane
of ideas, it had to confront the question of the discrim-
ination against homosexuals directly in the form of les-
bian-baiting. The women's movement has been lesbian-
baited from two sides. First, there are lesbians in the
women's movement, including in leadership posihons, and
the movement has been baited because of this. Secondly,
there is the related charge that any woman who fights
for her rights is stepping out of her "place," is rejecting
her "femininity^" and must be a lesbian. The women 5
movement has by and large rejected lesbian-baitmg as
an attempt to divide and weaken the movement. This
debate, and working with lesbians in women's groups,
helped many women overcome prejudices against les-
bians, and to see that this prejudice is, in part, another
aspect of the oppression of all women, since it mcludes
not only a prejudice against women engaging in sex-
ual relations with other women but also a prejudice abo-j:
what a woman's personality is supposed to be.
While these developments in the radicalization lay the
ground for the rise of the gay liberation movement, tha
movement itself has in turn brought a higher level '*
understanding and consciousness of the oppression
gay people among radicalizing youth, and wider laye
18
1
;ern- W
I
is gay liberation movement has been manifest in a
;^.- of different ways, from the coming out of hid-
-;-osexuals (some of them prominent people), to
in the bourgeois press, to the proliferation of
:..spapers, to the organized gay liberation move-
:r'59 and 1970, gay liberation organizations ap-
.1 n major cities and on campuses across the coun-
r7 Tie "coming ouf of organized gay liberation groups
rr^:- a growing mood, especially among young homo-
s' i!;, to reject self-hatred and to affirm their human-
= -.veil as a desire to fight discrimination. There
Tr_; i number of actions and demonstrations -- the largest
ii-re been the Christopher Street demonstrations in 1970
: 1971.
- ; m what we can tell from the probe of the gay lib-
13 movement that was conducted by the party and
: -.. and by what has happened since the party con-
:r_on, there has been an evolution of the organized
iiV liberation movement. A sector of the movement de-
Tiloped in an ultraleft and inward-turned direction. This
5cc-.or has become part of the broader ultraleft and com-
— -^-e-oriented youth current. In some areas, this pro-
ri=i has resulted in the virtual disappearance of any
- IT'S organized expression of the gay movement.
T'-is process was accompanied by splits, where there
■•■3.5 a reaction against this ultraleftism, and where there
-i:i people who wanted to keep a movement going that
: _'d continue to fight for the rights of gay people. Thus
in some areas and campuses, more stable formations
have survived. The Gay Activists Alliance in New York
is probably the most stable of these organizations na-
donally. On many campuses, some viable gay groups
have continued to function. Many of these, however, seem
to be, at present, concerned primarily with providing
various social services and outlets for gays, although
^e could expect that they could be mobilized around
specific struggles, should they develop. The present po-
litical orientation of these groups appears to be primarily
towards the elections. One of their activities has been
to confront candidates, demanding that they take po-
sitions in favor of the rights of gay people.
It's a very uneven picture throughout the country. In
some places, gay liberation organizations continue to
function on one level or another, while in others they
are virtually nonexistent. There is no national organi-
zational framework of gay liberation organizations. From
what we know at present, it is unlikely that there will
be such a national organizational framework in the near
future. It also appears unlikely, given the present orien-
tation of most gay liberation groups, that there will be
any national focus of action by gay liberation groups
in the period immediately ahead.
The gay liberation movement at present encompasses
a small fraction of homosexual people. It remains to
be seen how extensively gay people will be mobilized
to struggle for their rights, exactly what forms this struggle
will take, and the tempo of the struggle.
The question of what our orientation towards this move-
ment should be at the present time has to be considered
in the light of the concrete situation of this movement,
and in relation to other fields of work and tasks facing
the party.
In view of the present state of the organized gay libera-
tion movement on a national scale, it is my opinion that
it would be a mistake to attempt to carry out a national
party intervention in the gay liberation movement at the
present time. There is no national gay liberation organi-
zation which could be a focus of our intervention. There
is no national action coalition around specific issues of
gay oppression which we could support and help build.
Any attempt by us to start from scratch and try to build
such an organization or coalition would be a very dif-
ficult enterprise — in my opinion, one which would inev-
itably fail in the given conditions where we do not see
much motion toward such formations. We cannot attempt
to substitute our own small forces, in any movement,
for broader forces we might like to see organized, but
which are not at the present time.
Since the party convention, there have been a number
of struggles around the issue of gay rights that have
occurred on a local' level. For example, there was a dem-
onstration in Minneapolis ' last fall, reported in The Mil-
itant, protesting the firing of a gay person from his job
at the university. This year, again, it looks as though
there will be Christopher Street actions in some cities.
The tactical question of how to relate to such local
developments and local gay liberation organizations will
vary from branch to branch and at different times, and
should be decided by the branches in light of the gen-
eral overall political priorities of the party, and the re-
sources of the branches.
Finally, given the interest in the elections on the part
of most of the gay liberation movement, the position taken
by the SVVP election campaign on gay rights should help
us reach the best of the gay activists, win them to sup-
port of our campaign, and recruit them to our full pro-
gram. , . ■ :
, ". ^- ■ • ,• ■ -. ■ Junel, 1972
.-« rU
>(
19
IS A PARTY THAT BANS TRANSVESTISM,
READY FOR GAY LIBERATION?
(Vol. 30, No. 2)
by Sudie and Geb, Boston Branch
UTien the party a year and a half ago decided to allow
gays to be members on the same basis as others, we
took a big step forward in one of the few areas in which
our movement had serious weaknesses. But we still ban
transvestism within the party. The exact limits of this
g^plicy aren't completely cleaj, and -may involve a cer-
tain amount of flexibility. It would seem that comrades
who occasionally put on the clothing of the other sex
in the privacy of their own home, may not be seen as
violating this policy, but evidently it would not be ac-
ceptable for a comrade to wear drag to a bar or to
a movement party.
At the past party convention. Comrade Sheppard, rep-
resenting the Political Committee, told the gay workshop
that this ban would be continued, despite the natural
feeling of similarity between this ban and the ban that
had been dropped. One consideration put forward, of
course, is that— theoretically— transvestist members would
tend to isolate us from the mass of the workers, who
will retain many backward prejudices for a long time,
including prejudices against transvestists.
A second consideration put forward at the time was that
the desire to dress up as a member of the other sex was
not a voluntary matter of taste, such as the desire to
dress up in a certain style, modern fashion, etc. Rather,
the PC representative told us, the desire to impersonate
the other sex was an "obsession," sometliing uncontrolled,
which by inference made the victim of the obsession men-
tally unstable and not someone who would liltely be fit
for the rigors of party membership in the first place.
Neitlier of these arguments would receive a very favor-
able response within the gay liberation movement.
To begin to be involved in the gay liberation movement,
even on a very low scale, while retaining this member-
ship policy, would be extremely dangerous. This party
policy would inevitably become a public issue, and would
upply powerful ammunition to red-baiters within the gay
movement. Reasonably enough, an organization Vvhich
bans transvestists from membership would hardly seem
fit to lead a movement of a community in which trans-
vestism is so common, even to the point that transvestism
and gayness are widely viewed as being logically related.
The demand for legal and social equality for trans-
vestists would be a necessary demand of tlie gay liberation
movement. It would be difficult for a party to lead strug-
gles around such a demand, if the party itself did not
grant transvestists equality internally.
We may grant that most gays arc not transvestists,
and that most transvestists are not gay. But gay people
are too closely tied to transvestists, in associating togetlier
and in sharing similar forms of oppression, to ever be
satisfied with an organization which banned transvestists.
WHAT IS TRANSVESTISM?
Generally speaking, transvestism is the desire and prac-
tice of putting on the appearance of the other sex, through
whatever forms of clothing, make-up, or whatever elsd
is traditionally associated with the other sex in one's
culture. With modern medical techniques, it can be taken
to the extreme of physically changing one's sex, as has
been done recently by many individuals such as Chris-I
tine Jorgensen. These individuals, known as transexuals,]
are, of course, a much smaller category (perhaps I0,000|
in the U. S. ).
Of course, transvestism in clothing could hardly existi
among nudists or in any other culture in which there!
were no artificial differences in traditional clothing behveenl
the sexes. So it might be true tliat transvestism will dis-j
appear under socialism; but then, even the antiwar move- [
ment will disappear under socialism, so this by itself is |
no condemnation of transvestism.
In the stricter sense, transvestism may be thought ofj
as the practice of impersonating the other sex in order!
to obtain some sort of erotic pleasure. But in many cases!
it would be an oversimplification to say that erotic "plea-j
sure," in the usual sense, is involved; one's motives would!
often be much more complicated than that. Also, when!
a bearded male wears a dress but doesn't shave his face,!
he clearly isn't making a serious attempt to pass for fe-l
male, and so impersonation of the other sex is clearly]
only one aspect of the phenomenon.
In recent tiines, such a large proportion of American I
women often wear the sorts of slacks that are traditionaUy
associated with men, that this type of transvestism is
generally not even thought of as being tranvestism; the
same can be said for v^omen wearing the extremely shonJ
haircuts which in the past were considered masculine,!
and for men wearing the long hair traditionally cod-1
sidered feminine. Those women who do make an all-ou: |
effort to pass for male may be doing so in order to bs
able to hold a job they couldn't hold if it were known,
they were female; but again, this is not what people usu-
ally have in mind in discussing transvestism.
The most common practice usually labelled "transvest-
ism" is the phenomenon of a male who would not con-
sider himself gay, on occasions in tlie privacy of hii
own home or at a private party, wearing a dress or ir
some other way dressing up as a female. Some men like j
to wear female underwear underneatli the customary male
clothing during their everyday activity, without making
it known that they are doing so. In both cases, their
transvestism is just a part, often just a small part, of
tlieir personal habits and customs.
The sort of transvestism people usually think of firsi
is the custom of some gay males doing a more thorough
job of dressing up as females, when going to gay bar;,
gay parties, etc. Even here, this habit is usually not &i
all obvious in tlie persoii's everday life; his closes:
friends and co-workers commonly don't even suspect tha:
this is how he spends his Saturday nights. This practice
is generally a very practical and even necessary meani
20
through
ver else
.n one'i
)e take-
as hai
3 Chrij-
sexuals.
10,000
ly exis:
h there
)etween
'ill dis-
move-
-tself is
iblishing a sort of gay atmosphere, a difficult task
tt-; anti-gay society we live in.
nr.svestism is a widespread phenomenon, in each of
:rms. In many forms, it isn't even considered unusual.
i^ who practice it in the forms which are considered
al, generally do it only on occasions, specifically
occasions where it won't cause any social problems,
live otherwise "normal" lives as a whole; tlie occa-
practice of transvestism has no necessary noticeable
one way or the other, on the day-to-day life of the
festisL Even those who stay in drag all the time
;.: - : necessarily run up against impossible social bar-
In particular, those who go the full limit, using
r.; injections and surgery to change their sex out-
-". commonly end up leading more or less "normal"
:- as members of what for them used to be the other
^ -:- are to have any policy at all concerning trans-
_--;. in order for that policy to be serious and thought-
:: must take into account these realities of the phe-
u-enon.
1 IZXATING THE WORKERS?
ght of
order
■ cases
"plea-
would
when
> face,
for fe-
learly |
!rican
nally
im is
i; the
short
iline,
con-
1-out
o be
own
usu-
/est-
con-
his
r in
like
lale
ing
leir
of
rst,
gh
rs,
at
est
lat
ice
ns
^':--ild allowing transvestists into the party on the same
■ .-li as anyone else tend to isolate us from the working
: -55 to a significant extent?
' 'ost transvestists are not even known to be transvestists,
'-^ ;n among their close friends and co-workers, except
-- -hose known to be sympathetic. Tliis factor by itself
' : -Id nearly eliminate any need to worry about negative
'iz :rcussions.
If course, there is a substantial sector of the working
Class — the gay and transvestist workers, and those sym-
pathetic to gays and transvestists — who presumably would
.:« more favorable to us if we allowed transvestism with-
^ the party. With tlie rise of the gay liberation movement,
-^s sector is becoming especially political, and pound-
j fe»r-pound would be more important to us as a result.
The mass of tlie American workers, at present, prob-
ibiy coudn't care less whether we allow transvestism in
:he party or not. When the mass of a working class
— oves, it tends to ignore those obstacles which in the
;ist might have been important. In the Russian working
I dass, as in Russian society as a whole, anti-Semitism
■ was for a long time a very widespread and powerful
-rejudice, one which was by no m^eans completely elim-
t mated during the revolution. Ijogically enough, reaction-
aries tried to Jew-bait Trotsky to isolate tlie Bolsheviks
'r;m the mass of the workers. But when those workers
" ;re ready to take state power, such prejudices lost all
^--Jictical significance (but would the same have happened
_ :he Bolsheviks had catered to the anti-Semitism of tlie
masses?).
I Revolutions have been lost because the workers took
"" arms too soon, or not soon enough, because their
^-lership consciously wanted to avoid a class showdown,
: .- because they had no leadership at all. But never has
revolution been lost because the revolutionary party
faeluded some transvestists, nor for any reason remotely
e»mparabla There is no historical evidence that this prob-
lem should be an overriding consideration for us.
In terms of current recruitment, those workers and otliers
ho are at present within our reach, would be the least
chained to backward prejudices, and the least prejudiced
against those with different life-styles even where they
would want no part of such a life-style for themselves.
In our climate of gay liberation, cultural change and
increasing toleration of differences, those potential recruits
who would be blocked from becoming Trotskyists by
the existence of transvestists witliin the party, would on
the one hand be rare, and on the other hand might not
yet be ready for party membership anyway.
Thus, even on the most pragmatic level, our present
policy of banning transvestism within the party prob-
ably does more to isolate us from those we could reach
than a policy of allowing transvestism would. Assuming
that we become more and more involved in tlie gay lib-
eration movement, this situation will grow worse and
worse.
Such pragmatic considerations are important, and in
very extreme circumstances can even be primary. But
in America at present we can be very flexible. We not
only have a situation of general bourgeois legality, but
even more than that, we are in a situation where archaic
sexual prejudices are rapidly breaking down am.ong the
masses, where tiie bourgeois state is losing its ability
to enforce or justify its sexually repressive laws and is
even bemg forced to repeal them in many cases. The
long-term trend is emphatically in the direction of in-
creasing tolerance of cultural diversity, in the bedroom
and elsewhere. Let us note here that in tlie recent period
perhaps tlie most popular comedy act in show business
is Geraldine, who in reality is Flip Wilson dressed up
as a fem.ale.
In such a situation we are not compelled to cater to
the most backward prejudices of the masses, but rather
are very free to advocate the sort of tolerance and open-
mindedness that is associated with socialist consciousness,
and that aids tiie growtli of socialist consciousness. This
education is an important part of our work.
A PRECEDENT? • . . - ■
One important aspect of this idea of tolerance is the
idea tliat just because someone else has a life-style or
habit which is drastically different from yours, tliat doesn't
necessarily mean that the other person's life-style or habit
is an "obsession" of a mentally unstable person. In par-
ticular, transvestism is not in general an "obsession"; the
Political Committee is mistaken about that.
The party once thought that gayness was obsessive—
in particular, tliat in tlie repressive society we live in,
gays could not be expected to be able to control their
lives to the same extent that others could; therefore the
party was afraid that allowing gays as members threat-
ened to turn the party into a "therapeutic" organization
(in the words of the Nov. 13, 1970 PC memorandum
which dropped the ban on gays in the party). When we
dropped this ban, we discovered that there had been many,
many gays at all levels in the party who had been mem-
bers all along. The ban hadn't as a whole kept gays
out of the party, but only forced them to conceal their
gayness from the party. These gay comrades had to func-
tion in an especially difficult situation witliin tlie party,
just about as bad as they were likely to run into in the
outside world. Tliey were able to undergo the self-denial
and abstention, the secrecy and humiliation, necessary
J
to conceal their gayness from their comrades. This was
possible because gayness wasn't an obsession after all;
the gay comrades had as much self-control and disci-
pline as non-gay comrades have ever had. The rigors
of being a gay person in an anti-gay society may even
have made them tougher and more self-controlled than
they otherwise might have been.
At this point we are willing to predict that when our
ban on transvestism within the party is dropped, we will
discover that many transvestists had already been mem-
bers of the party as well. Like tlie gay comrades, the
transvestist comrades have been able to conceal their
transvestism from the party, because transvestism isn't
an "obsession" either.
LET THOSE WHO ARE WITHOUT SIN, CAST THE
FIRST STONE
Our present policy on transvestism witliin the party
is at least partly based on the assumption that there is
some special element of "obsession" involved in trans-
vestism. To the extent that that element is present, there
is nothing special about it Every comrade has personal
needs which, under certain circumstances, can present
a certain amount of obsession and interference with party
work. Any comrade with normal human limitations is
always in danger that the ups and downs of their erotic
lives may interfere to a greater or lesser extent with their
political work. It's not rare for a comrade to transfer
from one branch to another— sometimes very suddenly
and even where there is some problem in filling the as-
signments they leave vacant— because of the necessities
of their ero.tic lives. And this certainly applies even to
those comrades whose erotic habits are utterly traditional.
Only very rarely does tliis reach tl^e point where a com-
rade is forced to drop out or where the party is forced
to recommend a leave of absence or resignation. Virtually
every comrade and potential comrade has a potential
for contributing to our work, which vastly outweighs
tlieir individual limitations and faults; and this applies
to transvestists just as much as it does to traditionalists.
Is anyone alive today fit to pass judgment over any
supposedly deviant style of erotic pleasure? What scien-
tific evidence would they base tliemselves on? What scien-
tific evidence is there, v^hich in any serious way presents
a condemnation of transvestism? Scientific study of the
erotic side of life, has scarcely even begun. Neither the bour-
geois state, nor even tlie SWP, is in any position to pass
judgment over those whose love-making styles and erotic
habits are in conflict with Western tradition.
This much can be said in favor of transvestism. It
challenges the traditional, sexist sex-roles of our societjs
it defies those who say that This Is The Best Of All Pos-
sible Cultures, So Conform Or Else; it very much in-
volves tlie search for new experiences and new answers
(how educational it must be to walk down the street and
have people treat you as a member of the other sex — to
see how the other half lives!). To use a phrase currently
popular within the party, transvestism tears down a sac-
red cow or two. And if we may quote from Comrade
Barnes, "every time a sacred cow is cut down, it is a
time for rejoicing for the Trotskyist movement."
Does this mean that transvestism is revolutionary? In-
sofar as having the courage, and sensing the need, to
- tran^p
challenge bourgeois sex roles is revolutionary -
vestism is likewise revolutionary. .
Is transvestism tlie best way to challenge bourgeoir"
sex-roles? Is it even a halfway effective way? Or is it weD-_^
intentioned but self-defeating?
Who knows?
The party does not need to decide how good Trans
vestism is, if at all. This is fortunate, because we jus^,^
haven't got the theoretical groundwork for such a judg-j
ment. But if the party doesn't need to endorse transvest
ism, it doesn't need to condemn it either. We should hav^
no position at all on the question of the benefits or hari
done by the practice of transvestism to the transvestis
(we can of course agree that the practice of transves^
ism in no way infringes on anyone else's rights).
We especially shouldn't have the position that transvest-' ikxni
ism is an, "obsession" which seriously interferes with one's^R •=-i
functioning in life; not only is that position unrealistiafcli i^r
but further it can only bring us accusations that we are«iE ~<
•sexist. ^2.i_^
If there is anyone who can safely be accused of "obses- TiiSr
sion," it is those who are insecure in their own conform-»n. ra
ism to today's majority norms, who are obsessed withi
the need to rationalize their own habits by condemning i
the non-conformist habits of others. But even this formiri cc
of obsession needn't be an insurmountable barrier tok^-
party membership.
A QUESTION
It came as a surprise to some of us to discover lastf?^
August that tlie party had a formal policy banning trans- ^ _
vestism. This policy — naturally — had never been, and'^f ^
still has never been, voted on or even discussed by a --j^
party convention. It is the sort of policy whose advocates T
aren't very interested in having it discussed, or else tlieyl
would have brought up the subject themselves. Are tlierej
any other erotic types banned from the SWP tliat we don'tj
know about? How about masochists? Exhibitionists? Boot-
fetishists? Animal-lovers? Etc.?
ANOTHER QUESTION
To an extent it seems that our present policy on trans-
vestism assumes that all transvestists are male. This is
not the case. Many gay females dress in a butch drag
which would seem to be tlie counterpart of the drag worn
by the male transvestist. Women who don't consider fliem-
selves gay still sometimes dress up in traditionally male
outfits, even in suit-and-tie (various show business figures
could be mentioned here). Tomboyism is a massive phe-
nomenon. And masses of women wear traditionally male
clothing or haircuts, without for a moment thinking of
themselves as transvestists. -
For a woman to wear traditionally male clothing or
haircut might make it somewhat harder for her to reach
certain layers of tlie working class with our program —
just as various other forms of non-traditional clothing or I
habits might do. In this respect, also, there would seem to '
be little difference between female and male.
But to restrict female comrades from going too far away
from traditionally female appearance (where would we
draw the line?), would clearly cause much resistance.
Changes in appearance are closely linked with develop-
22
^^-^■^"^iTilil ^ -fr
insve
rans'.
i/er If;:
', trail
n, ai: .
d by
/ocatf;
se tlifc-.
e there
i don':
' Boot-
trans-
"■his is
drag
worn
til em-
male
gures
■ phe-
male
ig of
i:;st consciousness; to restrict women comrades
regard would be far more trouble— in terms of
;:ance of women in the party and in the mass
zTL'^ and in terms of a real psychological oppres-
well — than could possibly be justified.
•us reason the party has correctly been tolerant
forms of non-traditional appearance among wom-
-ies. A female transvestist wearing the same drag
- at gay bars, would probably not be challenged
.- appearance if she wanted to join the party,
-a party recognize the existence of female trans-
Is our policy on transvestism the same for fe-
,d males?
5 A LIMIT TO EVERYTHING.
rue comrades have pointed out that in real life there
aAny situations where it would be politically harm-
:r a comrade to sell Militants or otherwise repre-
z.i party, in transvestist drag — sometimes, "suicidal"
. b; a more accurate term.
--? are limits to the ways in which a white comrade
; our politics to tlie Black community, and vice-
' lale comrades can hardly carry out our inter-
s in the abortion movement. Straight comrades
iously limited in the ways that they can intervene
gay movement
— .- gay person knows that there are sihiations in
■■:.u don't point out that you are gay. Every trans-
.'ows that there are sitxiations where you don't
rg. Often, you wouldn't want to wear drag while
; - sell Militants to white construction workers, un-
-1 could successfully pass for the other sex with-
,iing any suspicions.
- -ings aren't all bad. ITie type of person who goes
- SMC, or other movement parties, usually could
_ any negative reactions they might have to seeing
ne in drag at the party, and some positive educa-
might even result. Presumably wearing drag while inter-
gat a gay liberation event, would have positive
3 of it made any difference at all. Wearing drag at
_iay bar, whether you're there for social or political
■ses, would seem pretty realistic.
in drag have sold gay liberation newspapers in
Ige's Harvard Square without serious problems,
and presumably transvestist comrades could get away
with selling The Militant in drag there, on Berkeley's
Telegraph Avenue, at most political college campuses,
almost anywhere in Greenwich Village, and in similar
places, without intolerable repercussions and maybe even
with some benefits.
Those who best know the limits of what transvestists
can get away with in our liberal repressive society, are
tlie transvestists themselves; they know from experience.
They know how much tliey have to fear losing their jobs
or being evicted from their homes. They know how ir-
rational people's responses are in the various different
situations. They don't need to be locked up in tlie closet
by others; they have their own experiences, and their
own instinct for self-preservation, to guide them.
IN SUMMARY. '
A basic axiom of the gay liberation movement is that
the well-being of all people requires a clunate of tolerance
of diversity, in which today's minority is not suppressed,
but treated instead as a potential future majority— a
climate in which the only limitation on a person's free-
dom, erotic or otherwise, is that they may not infringe
on the rights of others.
In order to have any chance of gaining the respect
of the gay liberation movement — and in order to deserve
that respect— the SWP must energetically teach this con-
cept But in order to preach it, we'll have to practice it
Our present policy on transvestism is not yet generally
known about outside the party. If we become active in
the gay liberation movement without changing that policy,
however, that is sure to change; our policy on transvest-
ism is sure to become a very public issue, and it will
discredit us badly. At thtit point, even if we then changed
the policy, the distrust would endure.
We must act now. We must allow transvestists into the
party, as individuals, on the same basis as all otliers,
'/vitiiout unrealistic and unnecessary restrictions. Until we
make that change, we aren't ready for the gay libera-
tion movement
,. ■ June 6, 1972
g or
■each
im —
ig or
n to
way
! we
nee.
■lop-
I
I
23
GAY LIBERATION AND CLASS STRUGGLE
(Vol. 30, No, 2)
by David Thorstad,
Upper West Side Branch, New York Local
"I'm not willing just to be toler-
■ * ated. That wounds my love of
love and of liberty."
— Jean Cocteau
INTRODUCTION
All oppressed social layers initially hold this in com-
mon: they do not realize that they are oppressed, and
once they become aware that they are, they do not have
confidence that they can do anything about it Naturally,
the ruling class and the institutions it oversees do their
best to maintain the oppressed in a state of paralysis
and powerlessness: Blacks are treated as the inferiors
of whites, women are taught to be domestic slaves, tlie
workers are told they are John D. Rockefeller and that
the country belongs to them, etc.
Gays are told, among other things, that they are a smaU
bunch of weirdos who can't hack heterosexuality. Never
mind the fact that the exclusive life-time homosexual
constitutes a rather small percentage of the gay popu-
lation—that rigid adherence to exclusive sexual norms
is a more heterosexual phenomenon than a gay phenom-
enon. This is not only not widely known, it is generally
considered irrelevant. It is considered irrelevant because
tlae sexually repressive institutions of this society do not
allow for homosexual behavior with any frequency, under
any circumstances, in either sex, or at any age.
As a result, the anguish gays are forced to undergo
is seen as a function of a personal affliction that ought
to be avoided, not as oppression induced by a sexually
repressive society that needs to be changed. Gays are
encouraged to turn their oppression and anger in on
themselves, not outward at the society in which tliat op-
pression is so deeply rooted.
Redirecting that anger is no easy task because the taboo
on homosexual behavior is surrounded by such fear and
ignorance. For not only has patriarchal society confis-
cated humanity's freedom of sexual expression, but it
legitimizes tliat theft by getting those who havebeen robbed
— all of us— to go along with it. Ignorance and fear of
reprisal — whether in this life or in the next— are the main
vehicles for accomplishing this.
Gays face difficulties no other oppressed sector faces
in attempting to discover who they are. For instance,
the oppressor is able to maintain his mytli that we are
a tiny minority by the fact that, unlilte women and Blacks,
who are at least identifiable to each other, we look like
the oppressor. Therefore, we are able to pass for straight
— not because straights are clearly identifiable, of course,
but because in tliis society you are assumed to be straight
until proven guilty. Gays are not only liltc fish in a sea,
but in a sense we are also the sea. Homosexuality, like
heterosexuality, is not an identifiable condition but merely
one form of sexual behavior. But — and a big but it is,
indeed! — unlike heterosexuality, it is a form of sexual
behavior tliat our society does not accept.
■ft:
Another special difficulty gays face is the prevaill^-^
notion that in order to have an objective or even m-^
esting opinion about homosexuality, you have to
heterosexual. Even liberal-minded persons who would
thinlt of disqualifying a woman as a source of knowl©
on what it is like to be a woman or a Black on wr-
it is like to be Black often do not hesitate to do precisv
that when it comes to gays. When gays exhibit concept
over something tliat means as much to them as th-;.
homosexuality, they are stUl knowingly dismissed as pti
with an axe to grind.
This is what Arno Karlen does, for example, in :.
recently published book Sexuality and Ho mo sexually
which is being pushed by Book-of-the-Month Club a:
which is immodesdy presented as "the definitive explar..^
tion of human sexuality, normal and abnormal." Thi|
he is able to dismiss such a pioneer in the scientific stu%liir»
of homosexuality as Magnus Hirschfeld (on whose woi|» —
tlie Bolsheviks based their discussion of homosexual:
in the Soviet Encyclopedia) "because [!] he was hims-
a homosexual and occasional transvestite, known affr
tionately in Berlin's gay world as 'Auntie Magnesia.'"
Few. autliorities that the gay person might turn to in th
society for information about how we fit in tell us an
thing except that if we want a role in the play we'd bet:
first straighten out— or else. This goes for the most hum':
autliorities, beginning with our parents, all the way l
to fhe celibate Judeo-Christian god, who has an uncc
monly fierce distaste for our vice (in contrast, say, to t':
gods of the Greeks, who were said to have been responsic
for introducing mortals to the joys of homosexuality
Wifh few exceptions (Sappho, Genet, Gertrude Ste.
. . . ), most of our gay brothers and sisters who ha
made some noteworthy intellectual contribution to Weste:
civilization and cullxire (Plato, Michelangelo, Gide, Prouf
Shakespeare, Alexander the Great, E.M. Forster — the 1:-
would have to include virtually every important figu:
in history who was known to be gay) are said to ha-
made their contribution in spite of their homosexualir-
Since it is never assumed that homosexuality could If
a positive factor in anyone's life, it is as though socief
were doing us a favor by submerging the sexual identi;
of history's homosexual greats; why should one want ^
be reminded of Qiings one is trymg to forget?
All oppressed groups need to discover their histo:
and culture. The contribution of great women and Blac-
has most often been simply ignored. Where possible, tl:
of gays has been dressed up and masqueraded as t:
contribution of heterosexuals. There is a reason for th;
The proper idols for the oppressed are idols the oppress:
finds acceptable. I'll never forget how shocked I w:.
and how proud, when more tlian ten years ago I fir
read Whitnian's Leaves of Grass and discovered th:"
someone who was widely considered one of the greate'
American poets was not only homosexual, but he actuaL*
wrote about it with something like the joy I myself fe.'*
Most gay writers have not done this. Many had to gi.'*^
24
; irevailing heterosexual norms and write "in drag"
^ -p their characters as the opposite sex) in order
ublished. Love in Western literature is still limited
ro sexual variety.
A-re have of course always been gays who have
rrevailing heterosexual norms in bed, never before
- : • taken to the streets to demand equal rights
:■; sexually oriented persons. The logic of their
r-jwever, is not merely to fight for civil rights
..;ri-jon, but for full human rights and acceptance
die positive integration of homosexual behavior
±se liberated society of the future. Theirs is a strug-
35 win back the sexual freedom confiscated and per-
by class society.
raises the question of how homosexual oppression
and how it is built into the needs of class society.
in other words, is the relation between class struggle
fee struggle for gay liberation?
did homosexual oppression come about? The ques-
B of obvious importance to Marxists: to fight for
Id free of oppression you have to understand the
of the oppression that is a part of the world you
trying to change. Obvious and important though
estion is, however, it is not an easy one to answer
prevailiqt
even int
IV e to
would
knowled
:C on w.
) precis
it cone
n as th
;d as pe
>le, in hM
sexualit
Club a
explan
al." Th
:ific stud
ose wo
isexualirfti-
s himse^,: ,_se of the very nature of the subject of homosexuality.
■wn^affeCti love that dare not speak its name" has also been
ve deemed unworthy of serious study— by Marxists
:'cne elsa
;. for instance, no known study has yet been done
r historical, economic, and social origins of the
:igainst:. homosexuality. Very little is known about
sexuality before the rise of class society and recorded
- Much of the little that has been recorded by
.y, to thr :-::5 about homosexuality in primitive socieities has
^ponsibU -iKorted by the prejudice of eyes trained to see— and
xualityji' : -ee — by Judeo- Christian moral standards,
de Steir Despite the general lack of information on this subject,
ho hav^'^'sver, enough is known about tlie rise of class society
Wester^ make it possible to shed some light on the origins
:, Prousi' homosexual oppression; and enough is known about
-the li^ legal and religious forms the oppression of homo-
it figur^sals has taken for us to be able to trace the intensity
to havP* aniigay phobia in present-day American society back
2xuality^ iSs cultural roots,
ould bf
ORIGINS OF HOMOSEXUAL OPPRESSION
to in thi>r
1 us any
e'd bette
t humb;
way u
n uncoi:-
•- society
identity
want tc
histor-
. Black
)le, tha
as th -
'or this "
presso:
I was
) I fir.
ed tha
freates^-
.ctualh-*'
elf felt*
to give
T search for an understanding of the origins of homo-
i: :ppression, while difficult, fortunately does not need
. -sgun entirely from scratch. The foundations have
;y been laid in the contributions of such persons
-:.rgan, Engels, Malinowski, Wilhelm Reich, and
- Reed.
; existing historical materialist analysis of the rise
al repression— as a key component of the process
::• matriarchal society was replaced by patriarchal
: . whereby primitive communism gave way to in-
rrly complex forms of class society— is perfectly
--:e for explaining how the attempt to suppress homo-
^ behavior came to be necessary. Of course, this
i-ysis of the rise of sexual repression and class society
I
25
has never been made with the origins of homosexual
oppression in mind. (In fact, when researchers have not
simply ignored the question of homosexuality altogether,
they have been inclined more often to look for causes
of homosexuality than for the causes of homosexual op-
pression.) This of course does not make the historical
materialist method, or the contribution of those who have
used it, any less valid. It merely means that their analysis
needs to be expanded to include a facet of the topic that,
perhaps because of shortsightedness inflicted on them by
their epoch, they have tended to overlook.
It is not my purpose to attempt to undertake a com-
prehensive discussion of this topic, though this certamly
should be done. I would like only to present some initial
thoughts, which, however obvious in light of what is
known about the transition between prunitive communism
and class society, have nevertheless not found their way
into any discussion of it that I have seen.
Let me add parenthetically that I do this not because
I consider myself especially qualified for the task, but,
quite simply, because it has to be done.
The Family ^^
The origins of homosexual oppression can be traced
to the rise of the patriarchal family and the repressive
sexual restrictions, the subjugation of women, the (hetero-
sexual) male supremacy, and the inequalities of the reign
of private property that go along with it Homosexual
behavior was not always suppressed. During the matri-
archal period of human prehistory— prior to tlie introduc-
tion of sexual restraints, the confiscation of sexual freedom
and sexual equality by tlie new, male rulers of patriarchal
society— there was no more need to unpose restrictions
on homosexual behavior than there was to regulate hetero-
sexual behavior in accord with an incest taboo, to forcibly
impose the authority of the husband and the (male) chief
upon women, or to practice painful genital mutUations
like clitorectomies and circumcision during puberty as an
aid to enforcing premarital chastity.
The transition from matriarchy to patriarchy, says Reich
in The Invasion of Compulsory Sex Morality, consists
of tlie following:
"1. The transition of power from woman to man.
Thereby the power displacement grows vertically, ac-
cording to rank. Tlie chief, in contrast to the citizen] has
the most power; his wives have the least
"2. The transition from natural genital love life to
the compulsory marriage bond.
"3. The transition from sex- affirmation to sex-negation,
from the affirmation of premarital genital activity to a
demand for premarital asceticism. And finally the most
important thing:
"4. The growing division of society into oppressing up-
per groups and oppressed lower groups. "^^^-^
This transition is one whichronly requires the enforced
constriction of sexual expression in general but it is one
with which homosexual behavior stands in particular
conflict This can most clearly be seen by looking at the
requirements of the mstihition that developed as the end-
product of this process— the patriarchal family.
It is because homosexual behavior threatens the proper
functioning of the patriarchal family that it needs to be
regulated, persecuted, and in some cases, if possible,
eliminated. (The degree of persecution varies, depending
on the period and the culture, but the underlying conflict
between homosexuality and the family remains.) Theessen-
/ tial functions of this institution with which homosexuality
comes into conflict would seem to be the following:
1. As a unit for transferring inheritance in patriarchal
society and for maintaining the family line. This not
only enforces chastity and monogamy upon women (so
the father can be certain his heirs are his own), but the
prospect of inheritance binds the sons more closely to their
fathers and makes them more willing to accept paternal
authority, thereby enhancing the authority of the father
over the sons.
2. As a reproduction unit for supplying a labor force
and fighting men, as well as a reserve army of labor
consisting of women. Marriage becomes a duty to one's
ancestors, whose family line must be perpetuated, and
to the tribe. Women are married off as a matter of course
since their purpose is reproduction. A man who evades
his reproductive responsibilities to his family and tribe
tends to be looked upon with hostility or suspicion.
Homosexual behavior, of course, does not now and
never did constitute a great threat to reproduction per
se. In a society free of sexual restraints, it sunply co-
existed and overlapped with heterosexual behavior. But
with patriarchal society, reproduction within the frame-
work of the family institution becomes a socially imposed
duty; homosexuality, being both an unpredictable element
and a nonproductive form of sexuality, tends to be re-
garded as antisocial.
3. As a unit for instilling the proper ideological out-
look in children. It is in the family that the sex-tj^ping
and rigidly delineated sex roles are first learned, and
with them the proper attitude of submissiveness to pa-
ternal authority on the part of the women and children.
The patriarchal family is designed not to protect but
to prevent the free expression of sexuality.
The nuclear family is a heterosexual unit As such it
attempts to suppress normal homosexual impluses in all
of its members. The mability of this institution to provide
any opportunity for the expression of this natural side
of human sexuality is one of the things wrong with it.
The rigid definitions of sex role and sexual identity
that take shape with the patriarchal family constitute a
tyrannical straitjacket on the polymorphous nature of
human sexuality and temperament. The straitjacket is
a heterosexual one, and all tlie institutions of patriarchal
class society are geared toward seeing to it that people
stay in it. Homosexual behavior, by its very nature,
does not
Sex for Fun, Not Reproduction
One of the most important reasons why homosexuality
came into conflict with patriarchal society is that its sole
goal is pleasure. The stability of patriarchal society re-
quired the elimination of pleasure as the primary pur-
pose of sexuality. Pleasure was subordinated to repro-
duction as a justUication for sex.
Unlike heterosexuality — which, while also originally en-
gaged in for pleasure, nevertheless brought about a per-
petuation of the species as a by-product— homosexuality
was a purely nonproductive form of sexuaUty. It was
engaged in for fun only. As a result, its purpose could
not be subverted and given a new meaning by a sex-
negative society.
The Christian notion that sex is an evil to be avoided
by the godly but tolerated in the weak, and tlie teleo-
logical notion that sex is pleasurable so that people
be induced to reproduce, say a lot about the extent|
which a sex-repressive society destroys healthy hete
sexual behavior. But while heterosexual sex has coi
to at least be tolerated, if only as a necessary evil, hor
sexual sex has generally been suppressed as an insola
and unnecessary evil. Moralists who extol the sex-repr
sive heterosexual norms of patriarchal society tell the
who will listen that sex for pleasure is "degenerate,"
malistic," "uncivilized," etc.
The Virility- Aggressivity Equation
With the concentration of wealth in the hands of ±
male sex that occurred during the transition to patriarc^,.,gj^
arose a need to redefine sex in terms of roles that relats^ni,,
to property ownership and social status. Women ar.
gays became the victims of this redefinition.
Engels called the overthrow of the matriarchy the "worl;
historic defeat of the female sex." But the social degradi
tion and domestic servihide that became the lot of won
en with the triumph of the patriarchy went together wi-
a new sexual degradation as well. For it appears thi
with the social downfall of women came a change ::
the woman's position in coitus: Both Kinsey and Reic:
point out that in primitive society, the woman's usui_^
position was not below the man but on top of him,
a squatting position. And whUe this shift to the low
position probably occurred because of social and c
tural considerations of dominance and submission, it qui
possibly also had something to do with anatomical co:
siderations: perhaps primitive women preferred Uiis topj
position because of the greater freedom of movement and
clitoral stimulation it afforded and from the greater plea-
sure they obtained from the deeper penetration of the
penis. 1
Whatever tlie case, the passive-active stereotype of sex-
ual intercourse that came to prevail in patriarchal socier
entailed a humiliating and degrading concept of tiie ro:;
of women in the heterosexual sex act Perhaps it is t;
this that we can trace the fact that patriarchal socie;;
has always tended to take a more negative view of th.
so-called "passive" participant in male sodomy. Ther;
is apparently no lower rank to which a male can stoor
m a male supremacist society tiian to imitate the posi-
tion of a woman in coitus. In some societies that hac
slavery (ancient Egypt for example), defeated enemie;
were often sodomized by the victors in what was undoubt-
edly seen not primarily as an act of pleasure but as a
way of humiliating the conquered. Even today in the
Muslhn countries of the Middle East where homosexuality
has always met with greater tolerance than in the Judeo-
Christian West, it is the "passive" partner in male sodomy
who is especially scorned.
Can not a hint of the common origins of the oppres-
sion of women and gays be detected in this tendency
of patriarchal society to equate virility and aggressivity,
superiority and supremacy?
An interesting example of how seriously the ruling class
takes the need to preserve its male supremacist norms
and how conscious it is of the relationship between homo-
sexuality and the subordinate role class society assigns
to women can be found in the way the British ruling
class met the shaking up of sex roles tiiat was beginning
to occur with industrialization (which undermines the au-
■r 1
26
i'*ni 'lir I ' -in'Tii
'eople ca
! extent
ly heter
lias coE
il, hoHM
T- insole
2x-repre
tell the
ite," "ai
is of
Ltriarch-'
t relate:
:ien an;
e "worlc
egrada-
jf wom-
ler with
irs tha:
ange ir.
i Reich
5 usual
him, in
i lower
id cul-
it quite
il con-
lis top
nt and
: plea-
of the
3f sex-
iociety
e role
t is to
ociety \
of the
There
stoop
posi-
t had
2mies
oubt-
as a
1 the
ality
ideo-
omy
ires-
211 cy
"^ity,
lass
rms
tno-
gns
ing
ing
au-
I
cirj- of the patriarch, and which squeezes out domestic
and provides the basis for women to become wage-
rs and to begin to free themselves from dependence
men). In 1885, just a few years after the Married
Ben's Property Act, one of the first important steps
rard in the emancipation of women, the Criminal Law
Ddment Act was passed making private homosexual
^of "gross indecency" (not buggery, which already
bring a life sentence) a crime for tlie first time,
to a maximum of two years imprisonment with
I labor.
imalian Heritage
laman beings during the prehistorical period obviously
1- - not write down or otherwise preserve for posterity
-hat they did and thought as far as sex was con-
: 1. But since it was a period free of sexual restraints —
;.;ng incest— we can assume that they were limited
oy their imagination and by what they found en-
;-2. This should lay to rest any question about
■-:;r or not primitives engaged in homosexual acts.
course, even the least knowledgable person can au-
:::atively assert that primitives engaged in heterosexual
: — if tliey hadn't, we would not, among other things,
-r. a position to hold this discussion. Gays, to be sure,
: : (but why should they feel the need to?) use this
-- : : argument in any effort to show that our primitive
i-:e;tors did indeed indulge in homosexual sex, and
r::eby feel we have somehow justified our sexual ori-
:-i-irion. But such an argument is never used following
i-i; objective investigation of the subject; rather, it is
. ::ntribution made by some leftists to the already long
.;ii ledious lineup of alleged "proofs" of the superiority
:-,e:erosexuality. In reality, the notion that homosexual
:r---ivior has not always coexisted witli heterosexual be-
iL'ijT but instead first developed as one of the hangups
■:i-.ned by class society is nothing more than a vari-
--:--. on a theme that a sex-repressive society has
.- :rked to death in its campaign to stamp out the blight
:: -omosexuality.
Homosexual behavior has played a role in human
■: ::eties since the beginning of human history. It occurs
-1 s :cieties that encourage it, it occurs in those Uiat mere-
. --olerate it, and it occurs in those that attempt to sup-
:i5i it The reason for this ubiquitous nature of homo-
:- -al behavior is that it is not a deviant form of sexual-
rut simply one form that the expression of the normal
-~in sexual drive takes. This universal appeal of ho-
^exuality itself explains the intensity of the measures
:.: have been taken to combat it
Homosexuality is a natural expression of human sex-
il potential and belongs to the mammalian heritage of
ireral sexual responsiveness. "The homosexual has been
significant part of human sexual activity ever since the
:--r! of history, primarily because it is an expression
-apacities that are basic in the human animal," ob-
: id Kinsey.
-----d not only the human animal, it might be added,
-■ animals in general. People unaware of the investiga-
:---- of scientists into the matter used to argue that ho-
exual behavior was "unnatural" because chimpanzees
: do it. Aside from the fact that it could be argued
- chimpanzees don't play chess or do a lot of other
-r.gs human beings do either, the fact is that when they
were observed, it was found that homosexual behavior
was actually something that they could be said to hold
in common witli humans. Indeed, two authorities on ani-
mal sexuality— the anthropologist Clellan S. Ford and
the psychologist Frank A. Beach in their cross-cultural
and cross-species study Patterns of Sexual Behavior— con-
clude that the tendency toward homosexual behavior "is
inherent in most if not all mammals including the human
species."
This subject was discussed by Kinsey too, who noted:
"It may be true that heterosexual contacts outnumber
homosexual contacts in most species of mammals, but
it would be hard to demonstrate that tlais depends upon
the 'normality' of heterosexual responses, and the 'ab-
normality' of homosexual responses. In actuality, sex-
ual contacts behveen individuals of the same sex are known
to occur in practically every species of mammal which
has been extensively studied."
Psychiatrists who wonder "What causes homosexuality?"
are asking the wrong question. (The very fact that they
never ask "What causes heterosexuality?" of course be-
trays their heterosexual bias and serves to justify their
use of the most extreme methods — including torture
tlirough electric shock treatments— to force their gay cli-
ents into a heterosexual mold.) The question that should
be asked is not "What causes homosexuality?" but "What
causes society, including its 'scientific' lackeys, to attempt
to suppress homosexuality?" The ansv^rer lies in tlie sex-
ual repression endemic to patriarchal society.
Engels and Reich on Homosexuality
The task of shedding light on the true nature of homo-
sexual oppression and the revolutionary potential of the
struggle for gay liberation is not made easier by the fact
that erroneous notions about homosexuaUty crept into
the work of two of the most original and important con-
tributors toward explaining the relationship between sex-
ual oppression and class struggle— Engels and Reich.
In the Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the
State, Engels says that the Greeks "fell into the abomi-
nable practice of sodomy and degraded alike their gods
and themselves with the myth of Ganymede" (a charm-
ing myth about a boy whose beauty prompts Zeus to
abduct him for purposes of carnal pleasure); he describes
the Germanic peoples, in an obvious reference to homo-
sexuality, as being "morally much deteriorated," particu-
larly from their migratory contact with nomads around
the Black Sea from whom they acquired not only great
sk;lUs in horsemanship, but also "gross, unnatural vices";
and in his discussion of the modern notion of individual
sex love, he appears to brush aside as a weakness what
was really a strength of the gay who, along with Sappho,
really founded the literary genre of lyric poetry— the "clas-
sical love poet of antiquity, old Anacreon"— as someone
to whom "sexual love in our sense mattered so little that
it did not even matter to him which sex his beloved was."
These views are more naive than they are malicious
(Engels' views on sodomy — which even heterosexuals can
and do do — certainly strike us today as embarrassingly
naive and even prudish). Though backward, they should
nevertheless be regarded with some degree of tolerance.
After all, his Origin of the Family appeared prior to
the work of Freud and at a time (1884) when the sci-
entific study of sexual behavior was only beginning to
get under way.
27
One cannot, however, be so generous in the case of
Wilhelm Reich.
Reich strongly opposed persecution of gays or attempts
on the part of heterosexuals to force them to go straight
And he supported civil rights for gays; the German Asso-
ciation for Proletarian Sex Politics, for example, which
he created in 1931 and which attained a membership
of some 20,000 persons, contained as one of the officially
stated aims of its platform the abolition of laws against
homosexuality. Yet Reich's position on homosexuality
never went beyond the kind of infuriating paternalism
one finds among some exclusive heterosexuals who wear
their wUlingness to tolerate gays as a badge entitling
them to persist in their unfounded belief in the natural
superiority of heterosexuality.
Actually, Reich's views on homosexuality, which he
did not make any attempt to hide, probably did as much
harm as good to the cause of sexual liberation.
When it came to homosexuality, Reich violated his own
conviction tliat moral standards had no place in judging
sexual behavior. In her biography of Reich, Ilse Ollen-
dorf Reich points out that "he never knowingly accept-
ed a homosexual for treatment," for example. When a
"very worthy professional man" who was once referred
to him for training turned out to be gay, Reich not only
refused to accept him but said: "Ich will mit solchen
Schweinereien nichts zu tun haben" (I don't want to have
anything to do with such filth). This antigay moral stan-
dard permeates his writings on the subject.
The most extensive statement of Reich's views on homo-
sexuality that I know of is to be found in his pamphlet
The Sexual Struggle of Youth. This is a sort of primer
of sex education, written in 1932 for the propaganda
organizations of tlie German Communist youth.
Homosexuality, he says, is a "deviation of sexual de-
velopment, and as a result is not a product of natural
causes." While he accepts the Freudian concept of an in-
herent human bisexuality, and while he recognizes that
"as far as their physical makeup is concerned, most ho-
mosexuals are completely normal," he also makes an
unacceptable concession to the sex-repressive norms of
heterosexual society by subscribing to the conflicting no-
tions that heterosexuality is both natural and superior,
whereas homsexuality is a "deviation," a "result of a de-
fective sexual development during early childhood, in-
volving very quickly an experience of great disappomt-
ment in tlie opposite sex." He states his simplistic belief
that males become homosexual in order to cope with
the feeling that their love for a harsh mother has been
rejected; in the case of lesbians, it is the father who re-
jects their love. He believes (although it is not true) that
"every homosexual can cease to have such feelings thanks
to psychic treatment of a quite precise nature, whereas
it never occurs that an individual who has developed
normally will become homosexual as a result of the same
treatment." (One can only ask in exasperation whether
Reich is aware that such "treatment" is never used on
individuals who have "developed normally.")
Even homosexuals who show no signs of neurosis or
maladjustment but on the contrary are completely satis-
fied with their sexual orientation are to be pitied, sug-
gests Reich in one of the more arrogant passages: "Many
homosexuals who have learned to accept their deviation
and who feel at ease with their life style object to the
WJ^nrts
Ipg^iWI
fact that homosexuality is considered to be an evil
the result of a deviation of sexual development. The
see in this a disparagement of their sexual orientiatioi
. . . Above all, young people must be spared from
finitively turning toward homosexuality, not for mora
reasons, but for reasons of pure sexual economy; it ca
in fact be verified, that the sexual satisfaction of tb
healthy heterosexual individual is more intense than tb
sexual satisfaction of the healthy homosexual." _
One would be curious to know just what steps Reic
took to "verify" the superiority of heterosexuality. On
can safely assume, however, that he did not consult an
happy homosexuals or bisexuals in his rush to preac
the superiority of the heterosexual orgasm.
The fact that this is the kind of statement one migh ,
expect to hear from someone who regards gays as "filtl] ^^_^
(however "healthy") does not make one any more ii
clined to tolerate it Indeed, it is against tlie harm doD
by precisely such attitudes as Reich's that the gay libera
tion movement is struggling.
Reich's belief in the superiority of heterosexuality
not based on either scientific investigation or, it appears
personal experience. It is rooted in a purely mystical faitii
that is uncharacteristic of most of his early work.
The Invasion of Compulsory Sex Morality, for instance
he repeatedly describes this notion with such unscientii
terms as "natural genital embrace" (read: penis in vagina)
"normal genital goal" (read: exclusive heterosexualitj-)
etc. • .
Starting from his subjective premise that the heterosexua
orgasm is more "satisfying" than the homosexual on^
Reich deduces that homosexuality did not occur amoi
primitive peop.'e whose sex-positive environment pre
vented them from choosing something second best: "Arnong^
primitive peoples, who lead a satisfying and tranquil sexk
life, and who do not prevent sexual development amon^^ -
the children, homosexuality— except [?— D. T.] in its spir-«it
itual form, friendship — does not exist." (Sexual Struggle:
of Youth) Reich regards this argument as the clincherfc
in his case for the superiority of heterosexuality; he»
remains oblivious to the fact that his premise is both*"
faulty and absurd (who but god has the authority X-: *
lay down laws on what is "sexually satisfying"?); he ther- >
fore fails to see that the very freedom of sexual develor
ment that he associates with primitive society itself pr-
eludes the limiting of sexual expression to the confine-
of an exclusive heterosexuality diat first reared its hea:
later, as part of the sex-repressive requirements of th^
new patriarchal society.
Reich does not take complete credit for this idea: "Ac
cording to the most recent research of Malinowski, th;
English ethnologist, homosexuality appears among prim- £^
itives only to the extent that the missionaries— these fore-^*'"
runners of capital — begin to introduce Christian morality*^
into natural sexual life and to separate the sexes." The *
research Reich is referring to was presented inMalinowski's '*'
The Sexual Life of Savages (1930), which Reich incorpo- '■
rated into his Invasion of Compulsory Sex Moralitu *
(1931).
Malinowski's own heterosexual bias is typical of the ^
attitude of many Western scientists who observe primi- r-
lives. The fact that their explanations of what they see
are sometimes thoroughly immersed in the sex-repres-
sive perspective of the Judeo- Christian tradition does noth-
28
1 evi;
^t. Tr
■ntiat;.
rom ;
r mo:
r, it c.
: of 1
ha.n L
■s Reid
ty. C-
ult a:_
prea:
! mig:
s "fiJL-
3re ir
->. dor.
libera
pears^
ity
he
i's
o-
'ty
le —
li- —
s- -
1- -■
^-.ance the credibility of their observations. In
: Mahnowski, this shortsightedness meshed per-
i: Reich's own mystical notion of the superiority
: sexual orgasm.
.^mong the Trobriander Islanders, Malinowski
: egin their sexual exploration at a very early
r before tliey are able really to carry out the
;; ' As they "satisfy their curiosity" about the sex
£ r.ey indulge in genital manipulation and such
z er\-ersions" as oral stimulation. "As they are un-
rd by the authority of their elders and un-
: oy any moral code, except that of specific tribal
. rre is nothing but their degree of curiosity, or
^iid of 'temperament' or sensuality, to determine
;-. or how little they shall indulge in sexual pas-
[y emphasis — D. T. )
;■- Malinowski says later on: "It is fully confirmed
Irobriands that free sex life does not allow any
:uaUty to form there. It cropped up in the
.. 7^3 only witla the influence of white man, more
.V of white man's morality. The boys and girls
lission Station, penned in separate and stricdy
houses . . . had to help themselves out as best
could, since that which every Trobriander looks
as his due and right was denied to them. According
careful inquiries made on non-missionary as well
missionary natives, homosexuality is the rule among
upon whom white man!s morality has been forced
an irrational and unscientific manner."
Malinowski (and by extension Reich) expect us
e that the curiosity of the primitive Trobrianders
inferior to that of chimpanzees and other lower mam-
who have no contact with Christian missionaries?
sabhuman primates and humans living in class society
homosexuality in common, while it remains alien
primitive humans? Is homosexuality something that
imposed on previously happy exclusive heterosexuals?
we really to believe that the variety of sexual ex-
■aence hoinosexual behavior affords arose only with
imposition of sexual restrictions? Is variety of sexual
eince compatible with sexual restriction and taboo,
does it thrive in a state of sexual freedom? Is exclusive
©sexuality reaUy the full expression of social and
a-^al freedom?
7: ask these questions is, admittedly, in some degree
mswer them. But the very fact that they need to be
Eied at all with regard to someone like Reich, who tol-
i-.rd homosexuality (although he found it distasteful)
li supported civil rights for homosexuals (as a soci-
-i: and democrat), is an eloquent illustration of the
:: iat the liberation of gay people involves much more
i- the mere guarantee that we will be tolerated, that
'-i discriminating against us wiU be eliminated, that
ill no longer be burned at the stake, involuntarily
::a;ed, murdered, ostracized, or viewed by straights
-i that "there-but-for-god-go-I" look. For tolerance is
litively easy; everybody at least likes to be regarded
: tolerant ("Why some of my best friends are . . .").
But gay liberation does not involve a struggle of mis-
-i lo be treated not as criminals but as misfits. Gay
rtration involves the winning of full human rights and
;-^om of sexual expression not just for ourselves, but
-■ everyone. It means freeing the full sexual capacities
all of us (including those of us who have already.
for whatever reasons, rejected the exclusive heterosexual
norms of patriarchal society, but who are by no means
yet the free human beings we all want to become , as
well as those who are still desperately clmging to the
norms of exclusive heterosexuality). Ultimately, it involves
a struggle for sexual liberation in general.
This is not an esoteric or exotic struggle but one with
significant links to the class struggle.
HOMOSEXUAL LIBERATION AND
CLASS STRUGGLE
Sexual oppression and the imposition of sexual restric-
tions are at the origins of the development of class op-
pression. And the struggle against sexual oppression has
a role to play in the elunination of class oppression.
The fact that the effects of thousands of years of the sup-
pression of freedom of sexual expression will be totally
eliminated only widi the elimination of class society does
not diminish tlie relevance of tlie sexual liberation strug-
gle today to the revolutionary struggle of the proletar-
iat for socialism. On the contrary, it enhances fliat re-
lationship and enriches the struggle for socialism. In ad-
dition, a special significance is conferred upon the sexual
liberation struggle by the fact that the revolutionary act
of taking ownership of the means of production out of
the hands of the capitalist class, while of course essen-
tial, is not sufficient to automatically bring about sexual
emancipation and eradicate the attitudes inculcated over
millenia.
"Sexual suppression is one of the cardinal ideological
means by which the ruling class subjugates the working
population," wrote Reich. The fact that the majority of
people are stUl not aware of this does not make it any
less true. And the fact that most people today tliiiik of
homosexuality in terms of the lies and fears imposed
by an exclusively hererosexual society does not mean they
always will. The gay liberation movement has a contri-
bution to make to their developing awareness. It is a
contribution tliat will tend botli to undermine some key
props of capitalist society and strengthen the combativity
of millions.
The fact that this struggle does not necessarily take
place around issues traditionally associated with the trade-
union movement in no way reduces its significance for
the revolutionary movement For the issue of sexual op-
pression that it raises is one that is not merely of inter-
est but of vital concern to everyone. With perhaps a slight
exaggeration, Reich put his finger on this when he noted
that "Whereas economic misery affects only a small seg-
ment of society, sexual misery encompasses all social
strata." And the economic deprivation of the poor and
the working masses certainly does nothing to ease their
sexual misery, cramming them togetlier in the antisexual
tinderboxes of the mongamous nuclear family. The spe-
cial vendetta of patriarchal society against homosexual
behavior is an important aspect of tlie sexual misery
of millions.
The nuclear family is a microcosm of society. It is
there that children learn the sex roles necessary for proper
functioning in capitalist society; it is there that they learn
how to be the kind of punctual bootlickers that make
good and well-adjusted workers like their father. He may
not be aware that capitalist society has taken away his
i
ability to control his destiny in exchange for the respon-
sibility of properly training his children to grow up to
be as subservient to the authority of capital as he is.
He may not be aware that his tyrannical ban on the
free development and expression of the sexuality of his
children is a socially necessary task whose subsequent
reinforcement society has entrusted to ponderous and com-
plex institutions — religion, the law, schools, the mass me-
dia, the police, psychiatry. He no doubt does not know
that his dread of finding signs of homosexuality among
his children is not rooted in any natural response of the
organism to danger but in thousands of years of diligent
efforts by patriarchal society to extirpate it and in his
own awareness of such impulses in himself. He may not
realize that his own sexual misery, while sometimes ex-
acerbating the neuroses of his children, is a necessary
ingredient in the proper execution of his task. He may
not even be aware of his own sexual misery or that all
this need not be.
Sex Typing '*'"
One of the strongest implements society uses to mould
the growing child into acceptable social forms and to
keep people there as adults is the coercion to behave
like a member of one's own sex (to be a real man, to
be really feminine). Anyone who deviates from these norms
is quickly labeled "queer." Gay people do not fit into these
sex roles in one key way: They violate the norm of ex-
clusive heterosexuality that underlies them.
These heterosexual sex stereotypes and definitions not
only have nothing whatever to do with real human po-
tential; they are also reflections of the social needs of the
dominant, capitalist society, and fhey change as those
needs change. With the rise of entrepreneurial capitalism,
for instance, the rugged individual was the ideal — at least
the male ideal. Today there are no more entrepreneurs
to speak of and the rugged individual image is no longer
useful. In today's consumer society, it is not people with
initiative who are needed, but rather people who lack
it, people who follow orders — whether it be buying de-
tergent or killing Communists in Vietnam or hating ho-
mosexuals. In a technologically advanced, complex stage
of imperialism, the male ideal is the astronaut, the mech-
anized, unthinking robot.
These Images change for women, too. During the second
world war, when the capitalists needed to tap the reserve
army of labor to which women belong, the image pro-
jected for women was not that of today's happy house-
wife, content with the unrewarding labor of a home-cen-
tered life. No woman today who refuses to play dumb
and pretend that she likes being denied the opportunity
to develop as a free human being, independent of a man,
will for long escape the accusation that she too is "queer."
(This is the source of some of the lesbian baiting of the
women's liberation movement.)
Tliese sex stereotypes are used not only to sell the prod-
ucts of a consumer society. They are used to keep people
in line. If you spend all your energy trying to conform
to this society's warped and rigid definitions of a "real
man" and a "real woman"— and both straights and closet-
ed gays spend enormous amounts of energy doing pre-
cisely that— then you will have none left for the struggle
to overthrow the society that imposes those definitions
upon you.
Most Gays Are Workers
The struggle for gay liberation is not relevant to
struggle of working people for socialism merely becai
in a general sense the enemy of both is the same,
of much more immediate relevance as well because
lions of workers are gay. Although homosexual bei
ior occurs in aU classes, it is most widespread ami
the working class, if for no other reason than that
people in our society are workers. In addition, Kinse;
statistics would suggest that the percentage of gays
is higher among the lower social strata. (This is,
course, not to belittle the fact that homosexuality, wh
this society fmds no way to integrate in a positive fj
ion into its institutions, is found in the middle and up
classes. Actually, with the growth of the gay libera:
movement, this ubiquitous nature of homosexuality
itself aid the undermining of bourgeois moral values
institutions. )
It is true that most gay workers are not visibly g
-Except for a few professions (and even in these, ga;
still run certain risks, as the firing of Michael McConni
from his job as a librarian at the University of Mi:
sota showed), it is still occupational suicidie for m(
gays to disclose their sexual orientation. Their seer
is a matter of survival. But it is a secrecy tchat none
us ever willingly chose but that was instead tlirust upa
us by the institutions of a sick heterosexual society. ^
Many gay workers can undoubtedly be piersuaded L
come out and shed this secrecy. Perhaps many never wiC
But even those who stay in their closets may very we^
be inspired by the gay liberation movement to greate
combativity in other areas— as workers, as Blacks,
Chicanos, as women, etc.
What is Gay Liberation All About Anyway?
The oppression gays suffer is not primarily economi^
though we usually do suffer economic deprivation or jolf
related anxiety as a result of the antigay discriminatio
promoted by an exclusively heterosexual society. We ai
not oppressed because of our role in the family (thoug
the fact that we belong to this unit— as fathers, mother^
brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles . . . — is certainly one ii
portant aspect of our oppression) but because the familj
structure and the institutions of patriarchal society dd
not allow any room for homosexual behavior; in a sens«E-i
we are oppressed because we have defected from ou»il;-i
intended social roles. We are not oppressed because wan
constitute a behavioral minority but because we engag:'
in a perfectly natural form of human sexualitj- that cor.
flicts with the requirements of patriarchal society. Wha
is involved is not so much die oppression of gay peopi
as the attempted suppression of homosexual behavior
This is a rather important distuiction.
Certainly an immediate- aim of gay liberation is to ob-
tain civil rights for the minority of human beings whc
are presently homosexually oriented. This means fightin:
for equal rights legislation and extension of civil righ::
provisions in housing, employment and public accorr.
odation to all people regardless of sexual orientation
it means fighting to remove homosexual acts and, in-
deed, all noncoercive sexual acts, from the penal codes
it means fighting to end solicitation and cross-dressing .
laws, which are used to victimize gays when other laws
have been repealed; it means fighting against legalizec
30
titH.^^. .:',:. ^ : ^r..^^.
i
:: our gay brothers and sisters by heterosexual
in the psychiatric profession; it means fighting
discrimination against gays in prison and for
■-zht to receive visitors for sexual purposes on an
liiis with straight prisoners, and without the de-
r trapping of marriage; it means fighting to end
-irassment and entrapment of gays; it means de-
he right of gays in the armed forces and in pri-
eans fighting against Mafia exploitation of the
r. unity; it means demanding that the news media
mg us as news fit to print; etc.
y an immediate aim of gay liberation is to
±e democratic right of homosexually oriented per-
c be gay without being killed, beaten, imprisoned
rsracized. Certainly it involves a struggle to per-
r heterosexual majority to treat persons with
: ixual life style with tolerance. This alone will
cult struggle: A survey a couple of years ago
-lat two out of three Americans look on gays
-ust, discomfort, and fear. To most Americans,
-ality is more of a threat to society than abor-
.---:ery, or prostitution.
our struggle is not one merely for tolerance but
~ acceptance as human beings. We are not out to
-. e the subculture of the gay world into which
: society forces us when it fails to turn us into
z heterosexuals. Our goal is not to preserve any
: sexual way of life." The very concept of "homo-
^; a distinct variety of human being is a myth
.:3-y fostered by heterosexual society to buttress
--- exclusive heterosexual norms. In reality, how-
.\z':e are only people whose sexual drives naturally
---n to engage in various kinds of sexual acts,
- ._: homosexual acts.
;:ruggle is ultimately for a society in which there
\ : longer be "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals" but
hv.man beings expressing their natural sexual in-
;.-;. Our struggle is for a society that will ensure
protect the free development and expression of sex-
■- Our struggle is for a society that not only tolerates
sexualitj' but that provides for a positive institu-
integration of homosexuality. Such a society will
be a heterosexual society.
fact that today, for the first time in history, large
s of gays are throwing off the yoke of secrecy
struggling openly for their rights adds a heretofore
)m ouarr-t-r-- element to the struggle for social change. It is
.use weac ;.5— ent that the revolutionary party, having recog-
engagaE_-: .-_ must now champion and help integrate into tlie
at con-nesfcuiionary struggle to overthrow capitalist society.
. Wha:
people CULTURAL ROOTS OF
lavior ANTIHOMOSEXUAL PREJUDICE
iibly ga;
-ese, gaj
IcConn-^.'
of Min:
for mo,
r seer eel
t none
ust upc
V-
iaded t?
!ver wi;<,
'ery we:
greatt^
acks, a;
to ob- :-
's whoBiot
gh ting IE ^.
rights er^
ccom-nsE _
:ation; fcdt; ■
d, in-pi>!: -
:odes; tn.
2ssing
laws
alizec
I
of the essential functions of religion is to stamp
:■' 5 antisexual restrictions with divine authority and
■zl'i a sense of guilt in anyone who violates, or is
tempted to violate, them. "Not much education is
ei — only a little intellecutal courage— to recognize
le powers seeking to dominate do not bring colonial
; Christianity, clothing, and 'morality' out of cul-
; r-siderations but because they want to anchor
:.: of the coolie in the individual," noted Reich.
- _: any doubt, one of Christianity's greatest achieve-
along this line has been in the psychic mutilation
it has inflicted upon millions of gays. There is probably
no other group in which the "spirit of the coolie" has
been so thoroughly imbedded, and for so long. Nowhere
has the antihomosexual phobia of class society attained
a greater intensity than in the societies with a Judeo-
Christian heritage.
Judeo- Christian Heritage
The antigay phobia that permeates American society
to one degree or another infects all societies with a Judeo-
Christian heritage. It was this phobia of the ancient He-
brews and the early Christians, and not the more per-
missive attitude of Hellenic Greece, toward homosexuality
that came to exert the predominating influence in the
West.
While this antigay paranoia can be traced back to the
ancient Hebrews, however, even they did not always hold
homosexuality in such contempt. Wainwright Churchill,
in his book Homosexual Behavior Among Males, points
to the fact that "mouth-genital and homosexual activities
played a part in the religious rituals of the ancient He-
brews, and homosexual as well as heterosexual prosti-
tutes thrived in the very precincts of the temples."
For reasons that are not entirely clear, the develop-
ment of a hostile attihide toward homosexuality among
the Hebrews occurred around 700 B.C., following the
Babylonian Captivity. The break with practices such as
homosexuality that occurred at that time distinguished
the Hebrews from neighbors like the Canaanites and the
Chaldeans, with whom they had previously shared such
practices.
It seems likely that in their struggle with neighboring
tribes who used male cult prostihites in religious rituals
exalting sexuality as a creative force in nature, the He-
brews came to associate homosexuality with idolatry.
Tlie intensity of their antigay phobia (if not the phobia
itself) could thus be traced to religious roots. This as-
sociation has persisted under Christianity where the ten-
dency to link homosexuality and heresy has frequentiy
branched out to include treason as well.
Mosaic law included 36 crimes punishable by death.
Of these, 18 — or one half— were for the so-called "un-
natural" acts: between a man and an animal, between
a woman and an animal, and between two men. "If a
man also lieth with manlcind as he lieth with a woman,"
warns Leviticus 20:13, "both of them have committed
an abomination: they shall surely be put to deatli." The
most severe metliod of execution — death by stoning— was
prescribed for this innocent and loving act.
Sodom and Gomorrah
One of the most tenacious legends to arise out of this
hostility toward homosexuality is that of Sodom and
Gomorrah. The sin of these cities was so loathsome to
the Hebrew god that he sent two enticmg angels down
to test its residents to see if they had turned from tlieir
evU ways. They had not Victims of this first recorded
case of entrapment, they succumbed to temptation, and
god mercilessly wiped out the cities with fire and brim-
stone.
The use of fire and brimstone would seem to suggest
volcanic activity. But there are no volcanoes around the
Dead Sea. Which suggests that the story was introduced
from some other area and served as a mythological ex-
31
planation for the destruction of a city that had long since
disappeared. The myth became a vehicle for the Hebrew
religion.
And while it seems possible, if not likely, that the real
sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality So
much as their inhabitants violated a code of hospitality
by forcing their desires upon unwilling guests, the im-
portant thing is that homosexuality came to be viewed
by the Hebrews as the vice of depraved, alien cultures,
whether Egyptian or Greek.
The Hebrew laws against homosexual acts occur in
chapters associating homosexuality with other customs
of neighboring cultures — called "the doings of the land
of Egypt" and "the doings of the land of Canaan." Sodom
thus became a symbol in the Hebrew tradition of the
practices of these and other cultures god's chosen people
viev/ed as alien and hostile. And the merciless retribu-
tion Jehovah rained down upon Sodom was used for
more than 2,000 years to justify the most barbaric and
sadistic tortures of gay people. In fact, it was used by
several California state legislators last fall in order to
justify their vote against a bill removing the criminal-
ity status for oral and anal sex acts. The bill lost.
The Christian Emperors
Before the advent of Christianity, the Roman state made
no attempt to suppress homosexuality. Then, in 342 A. D.,
Constantius issued a decree making it a capital crime
— or, as he called it, "exquisite punishment." The earliest
Christian emperors punished homosexual intercourse by
decapitation. "When Christianity became the religion of
the Roman Empire," wrote E. Westermarck in his book
Christianity and Morals, "a veritable crusade was opened
against it"
Valentinian went further and decreed in 390 A. D. that
those found guilty of the "shameful custom" of sodomy
should be publicly burned alive— recalling the punish-
ment of Sodom and Gomorrah.
It was the supertitious and fanatic Justinian, however,
who, in two edicts in 538 and 544, A. D. , codified and
set the pattern for subsequent laws against sodomy. The
provisions of this code prevailed from the time of his
reign until the adoption of the Napoleonic Code in 1810.
Justinian believed that homosexuality was the cause
of the earthquakes, floods, and the epidemic of the plague
that threatened his and his predecessor's reigns. It is to
him that we can trace the notion that homosexuality en-
dangers the security of the state, a notion that persists
to this very day and which was widely invoked against
gay people during the witch-hunt of the 1950s in the
United States.
The penalty this Christian lawgiver prescribed for those
who had "gone to decay through that abominable and
impious conduct deservedly hated by God" was a pain-
ful death preceded by mutilation and castration. Justini-
an's psychopathic wife, Empress Theodora, was erotical-
ly aroused by torture and is said to have been driven to
masturbation while witnessing castrations. Gibbon, in his
History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
describes one of these tortures as "the insertion of sharp
reeds into the pores and tubes of most exquisite sensi-
bility."
Teachings of the Church
The Christian church used two main arguments against
homosexuality: that it was specially condemned by
in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, and that homosex
acts were, in and of themselves, "unnatural." Variatia
on these two arguments are found in the pronouE
ments of many of the church Fathers and have foi;
their way into the wording of nearly all the laws agai _
gay sex in the United States today. ~,
St. Augustine considered sodomy ^
bodily defilement and said that "those shameful acts, si:^
as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere as
always to be detested and punished." c
Clement of Alexandria saw in the belief of the anciea
that a rabbit gets an additional anus each year ck
proof of the lustful propensities of this animal. He w-_
so far as to claim that it was for this very reason th^^ ^
Moses forbade the eating of rabbits, declaring them "^, |.~
clean, and that in so doing, Moses was implicitly col,,. ^
demning all "unnatural" modes of coitus, especially ped%^i.^.-
asty.
It was Thomas Aquinas who provided what came ;.
be considered by subsequent moral theologians as "pro:.
that homosexual acts were against the law of natu:-
He argued that because the goal of the "sin against n.
ture" was pleasure, not procreation, it therefore "offer.:
against reason, is a species of lust." He considered be:
sodomy and masturbation to be more serious sins thi.
any other sin of lust, including those, like rape, th^
cause harm to another person!
The Middle Ages *"—
The most important medieval enactments against homc^
sexual acts were four canons adopted by the CouncF^
of Naplouse in 1120. Of the 25 canons it adopted, mo#^
were directed at the "sins of the flesh." Burning was prs-
scribed as the punishment by this council.
Havelock Ellis, in his Studies in the Psychology q
Sex, claims that "in France in the thirteenth century thj
Church was so impressed by the prevalence of homo-
sexuality that it reasserted the death penalty for sodomy
at the Councils of Paris (1212) and Rouen ( 12 14 ). "
Throughout the Middle Ages, homosexuality was as-
sociated with heresy. "Heretics were as a matter of course
accused of unnatural vice," states Westermarck in Thi
Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas. Though
there are no exact figures available, it seems likely tha;
thousands upon thousands of gay people were burne:
at the stake, usually for witchcraft or heresy. This prac-
tice of burning homosexuals at the stake actually con-
tinued into the eighteenth century, the "Age of Enlighten-
ment" Even the Renaissance, with its undertone of home-
sexuality, did not encourage any voices to be raised ir
protest of trials and death sentences for homosexuals,
accusations were vehemenfly denied.
Some apologists for Christianity, like Derrick Sherwir
Bailey in his biased but informative Homosexuality and
the Western Christian Tradition, attempt to play down*
the church's role in murdering gay people by arguing-
that it was the secular authorities, not the church, thai^
had the power to burn people at the stake, and that home
sexuals were only put to death if their "immorality
conduct was accompanied by grave error in belief or
if their behavior was "attributable to heretical ideas." Bulj
in a society completely dominated by the church, the
line between ecclesiastical and secular authority was al
32
ed by g^
omosexj
Variatiod
>ronour
ave fo-
vs aga:;
odomy
acts, s.
here a;
e ancier
.'ear ck-
He wr
ason th
them L.
citly cc:
lly ped;
came -
IS "proc
f natur
ainst n
"offen.
red bo
■ins th
'Pe. tha;.
I
logy o;
nry the
homo-
■odomy
JSiS as-
course
iii The
^hough
ly tha:
burned
3 prac--
y con-|
ighten-
homo-
sed ir
xuals;
one indeed. Moreover, BaUey neglects to say what,
:;. ihing, prevented the charge of homosexuality from
ir._- escalated to include "grave error in belief or "he-
ideas." He even goes so far as to praise the church
- - ;nerosity in considering the homosexual not merely
-:;al, but a sinner as well, which meant that repen-
r was possible! Yet what if the gay sinner was un-
-•-nt? Would not this constitute a "grave error in
Bailey's sOence on this speaks volumes about
- ::ering of gay people during the Middle Ages.
: sexuality and Heresy
_ry himself discusses at some length one of the most
- i;ic, and shameful, examples of the tendency of the
rval church to equate heresy and homosexuality:
rusade against the Albigensian heretics in the tliir-
--. century. Just how widespread homosexuality was
-g them seems difficult to establish, although Bailey
es it was widespread, and quotes J. C. S. Runciman
Medieval Manichee) as saying that the Albigensians
"an easygoing attitude about sexual morals, an at-
r peculiarly agreeable to the people of soutliern
\:e." Whatever the case, it is significant that the charge
-: mo sexuality, whether real or fabricated, was invoked
•'.istification for massacring the Albigensians.
: -ring the Middle Ages," says Bailey in a most re-
--ig passage, "many heretics (and among them the
;: notable and dangerous were dualists [who, like tlae
-jensians, believed that matter is evil— D. T.], and
pagated teaching about marriage and coitus which
repugnant not only to Christian doctrine but also
human reason and sentiment. Their theories found
ression not only in wild and defiant assertions cal-
ited to subvert morality, but occasionally also in pro-
miscuous orgies, while some construed them as justifica-
tions for homosexual practices."
The association of homosexuality and heresy was ax-
plicitly made linguistically. For the Albigensian heresy
was an outgrowth of a Manichean heresy originating with
the Bulgars. In French, they were called "bougres," and
the word "bougrerie" came to refer both to the heresy of
the Albigensians and the sin of sodomy. This is also the
source of the English word 'Thuggery" (a vulgarization
of 'TDougrerie"), which acquired the additional meaning of
intercourse with animals.
The Judeo-Christian traidtion condemning homosexual
love as not only sin against the law of god but a viola-
tion of the laws of nature was fully developed by the end
of the thirteenth century. It was to remain dominant
throughout Europe for 500 years, and it is still powerful
today in the Anglo-Saxon countries, especially in the
United States, where it holds sway in both the law and in
popular attitudes (though, as Kinsey has shown, popular
attitudes are generally ahead of the law on this question).
The fact that the phobia against homosexuality, weighed
down as it is with superstition and ignorance, persists
today, is a source of great anguish for gay people. It is
a phobia, however, that is deeply rooted in the needs of
capitalist class society. Obviously reason alone will not
suffice to eliminate it. Nor will it suffice to bring about
a reform of the antigay la\vs and other blatant forms
antigay oppression takes — however important and neces-
sary the struggle against the forms of oppression is.
The eradication of antigay phobia and the gay op-
pression it helps to reinforce and perpetuate can only be
accomplished by the revolutionary transformation of the
society tliat breeds them.
June 18, 1972
terwin I
y and^
down
guing
, tha: .
omo- I
ity in
;f' or
" But j
, the
as a
33
■' '-T.- ■'
(Vol. 30, No'. 4)
- -«=,
A CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION
■„ , . ON GAY LIBERATION
by Nat Weinstein, San Francisco Branch
it- : .
iil
As of this writing there has yet to be a systematic pre-
sentation of theoretical arguments supporting the propo-
sition that gay liberation represents a factor with sig-
nificant potential in the American revolution. There have
been, however, quite a few articles in internal bulletins
and in our press commenting positively along these lines.
There are also the public statements of party spokesper-
sons that help reveal what some of the arguments are.
Finally, there is Comrade Sheppard's contribution which
in its own way presents some of the issues on which lines
of thought are drawn.
This hodge-podge, unfortunately, must substitute for a
positive presentation of a thesis which is logically and
by past practice the only proper way to begin a dis-
cussion.
Comrade Barry Sheppard, in his article opening up
the literary discussion of the gay liberation movement,
makes a number of very important and correct observa-
tions of the nature of gay oppression. But his general
analysis of the nature and meaning of the oppression of
gay people is faulty in places and doesn't go far enough.
It ends, among other things, at the point it really should
begin. And the conclusions contained in his opinions of
what the party's orientation should be is, I believe, in
error.
Specifically, while correctly noting that unlike workers,
oppressed national minorities and women, gay people
play no special subordinate social role, he concludes mere-
ly that "There is not a precise analogy, therefore^ between
the oppression of gays and the oppression of workers,
oppressed nationalities or v^omen." There is more involved
than mere imprecision in an analogy, in this fundamental
difference in the social and economic position of gays.
I will try to prove in the following pages that because
of the fact that gays play no special subordinate social
role, and all it implies, (a) it can be readily shown that:
they are not exploited because they are gay, (b) the great
majority of gays escape overt oppression — and there is
no reasonable basis to expect that that will change, (c)
there are no effective social bonds linliing gays together,
(d) there are no effective links with the exploited and
oppressed layers of society', and (e) while this issue comes
under the general heading of the struggle for democracy,
lilce many another struggle for democratic demands but
unlike the struggle against the war, for example, it is
extremely limited in potential for attracting large masses
toward relating to this struggle. And, finally, I hope to
prove, these reasons explain why gay liberation cannot
play any significant role in the American revolution.
It goes without saying that all analogies are imperfect;
otherwise they wouldn't be analogies, rather the things
being compared would be the same. So it is, that ar
ogies between workers and oppressed nationalities
women are "imprecise." After all, the use of the analc
as a tool is helpful only if the common identities
sessed by the components of the analogy are gerrai
to the point being made. The only point, it would se
of an analogy between gay oppression and the opprJ
sion of workers, oppressed nationalities or women, j
to say that gay liberation is as fruitful an area of wc
with as revolutionary a potential as the others -
or take a little. That analogy, we shall see, falls flat
' its face!
Now, we must keep in mind that this literary disca
sion takes place in the context of an atmosphere of cc
fusion in much of the ranks of the party in which
false analogy has played no little part. WhUe it is und
standable that revolutionary-minded gays seeli so
as possible to identify and equate their social conditid
with other oppressed sectors of society, it seems that mat
of the exaggerated and untrue assertions made to si:
port this equation have taken considerable hold in
ranks of the party.
Looking back, v/e remember that in the first stag
of the party's intervention into the gay liberation mo-s
ments, it was widely accepted in the ranks of the par
that gay liberation was destined to play as great or near
as great a role in the revolution as we expect of oppress
nationalities and women. A "precise" analogy was se
between the forces. When this position became untenat
as a result of greater experience with the developme
of gay liberation, the analogy was modified by droppi
from the components a quality not affecting gay peop^
but common to the others; exploitation. "Oppression" wa
substituted in its stead to serve as tlie key common
nominator.
Even this proved untenable. How could you serious
equate the quality and extent of the oppression of
three with the one? Gay historians had to reach bad
into the dark pages of the Inquisition to find a modicu
of support for this thesis. A new category was four
readymade, circulating as a popular phrase in the ne
feminist movement; "psychological oppression."
"Psychological oppression" is an abstraction from be
the concepts of exploitation and its derivative, oppre
sion; having little connection with the meaning of 0|j
pression as it affects the three basic sectors of socie
we are considering. It is an abstraction, to say the least'
whose size, weight, intensity, etc. resists objective measure
ment. Nevertheless, the "glue" that now holds the analogf*
together is provided by the concept "psychological oo-
pression." But to prove what? After all, with the afflictiai|
of "psychological oppression" as our common denor
inator, all manners of people could be "proven" to
the source of revolutionary contingents.
The question at issue is not the reality of this categor
be it as it may. Gays are victims of a kind of overt op
pression and the resultant reflection on their personaiitio
34
germa
uld se
le oppr
'omen,
i of wo
srs — I
Is flat
I both
3pres-
)f op-
ocietj-
least
isure-
ilogy
1 op-
ction
nom-
to be
t op-
lities
k
- :5 no less real. Of course, we should continue our
r. of unconditional support to the struggles of homo-
; for full democratic rights, including full civil and
-- rights, and against all the forms of discrimination
oppression they suffer under capitalism. What is at
however, is the concept of "psychological oppres-
existing as a force capable of impelling significant
ers of gay people who are "in the closef into "coming
The "closef avenue of escape from ouerf oppression,
r.e basis of historical experience, is too easy. The
rhelmingly large majority of "closeted" gays(accord-
:o repeated assertions by gays) evidently find "psycho-
cal oppression" more bearable than the overt form.
lere is no escape for workers as a class, oppressed
jies as nationalities or women as a sex. There is
losef except for the occasional light-skinned Blaclt
Ciicano who can "pass," or the worker who rises above
I class, or women whose economic position is powerful
igh for them to place their privileges above their
will not insult the intelligence of the comrades by li-
lting the chasm that separates the exploitation, the
of the oppression and its psychological reflection
red by workers, oppressed nationalities and women
that experienced by gay people. This absence of
pdaily grmding exploitation and overt physical oppres-
. in gay people's lives in contrast to the lives of Blacks,
rns, women and workers, however, should be kept
'^r — :nd when estimating (particularly when the analogy
^.ployed as a tool) the possibilities and limits of gay
ration to play a role in the revolutionary process.
Let me introduce a factor I thinly of key importance in
: analysis of the potential of gay liberation.
Our politics begin with the fundamental premise that
workers are the class destined by history to lead the
iss to the overthrow of capitalism and the creation
a new society. Our fundamental task is to build the
iment that is capable of leading the class toward
accomplishment of this historic mission. We have no
ions concerning the capacity of the v/orkers to achieve
goal without the revolutionary party leading the class,
try to understand their weaknesses as well as their
igths, limits and possibilities. And also try to under-
ad the mechanism that minimizes their weaknesses, aug-
its their strengths, extends theh^ limits and possibilities
as to eventually realize the full revolutionary potential
our class. For example, workers are generally the
T-.ctims of the worst prejudices perpetuated by the cap-
iilist rulers and their agencies. We don't compromise
■Eith these prejudices. But we know that contrary to ap-
riarances, which cause others to see the worker as the
lirdest chauvinist nut to crack, there is an overriding
fictor operating that will enable us to overcome these
rrejudices. The working class has the capacity, in fact,
:: ridding itself more radically, more completely, more
ioruptly of these prejudices than any other section of
~:ciety. At least in action — where it counts most.
That overriding factor is, of course, class interest. A
i-ear example of this capacity of workers to about-face
^ their attitude toward Blacks is shown by the history
:: the rise of the C. I. O. Before the C. I. O., because of
lie racist attihides and restrictions against Blacks, strilces
»ere broken and lost. Particularly the attempts to or-
gamze the mighty industrial giants of American industry.
The class interest of workers forced them to break with
their racist path -virtually overnight -remove thebarrlers
to the unions from the path of Black workers, and even
for a time, becoming the boldest champions of the equality
of the working class.
Certain prejudices held by workers are so crucially
opposed to their economic, social and political interests
that not only are they at a disadvantage in the day-
to-day struggles with the class enemy, but it would doom
them to defeat in the long run. The superexploitation and
oppression of nationalities and women — the lower wage
levels, the great predominance in the capitalists' pool of
unemployed workers— lowers all workers' living standards
and serves as both a source of super profits and as a
deadly weapon in the hands of the capitalist class.
This superexploitation of oppressed nationalities and
women which flows from the special subordinate roles
they play, is a quality it has been noted before, not present
in the lives of gays. Neither are gays, as gays, involved
in any way in this vicious and intricate process of ex-
ploitation and oppression which I have briefly sketched.
For while it may be true that many gays are also work-
ers, they are not doubly exploited and oppressed because
they are gay, as for example are oppressed nationahties
and women because of their nationality or sex or both.
And therefore, unless these workers are known homo-
seimals, which is rare, their homosexuality is effectively
irrelevant.
The exploitation and oppression of Blacks, Browns
and women is in great part intimately related to the ex-
ploitation and oppression of the workers. They are tied
together with a thousand strings. Some of the identity
of interest can be seen by the three sectors, some cannot.
Some common or compatible interests are mistakenly
seen as antagonistic. Our task is to explain to each sec-
tor why each other's aims that might appear to be sep-
arate or antagonistic to the other's interests, aren't at
all, and actually are in fact quite in the mutual interest.
As for example; the hostility of workers to the Black
and Chicano .•struggle for self-determination, one small
facet of which is control over education in their own com-
munities—the struggle for an equal education. After
making clear whose side we are on in the racist dominated
furor surrounding this question, we must explain to the
workers how and why it is directly in their class interest to
support this struggle. Since concrete gains won by Blacks
and Chicanos spill over and result in gains for workers
too. Circumstances are often similar, workers need better
education too! Besides, there is the political example set
for the workers by the independent struggle of Blacks and
Chicanos itself. V/hat is highly relevant to our discus-
sion is the simple fact that this intimate relationship serves
to make our efforts in the one compliment and augment
our efforts in the other. I think it important to note here
that Trotsky taught us that the national struggle is an
organic part of the class struggle.
Isn't it apparent that there is no such relationship be-
tween gay liberation and the other three basic sectors?
Is the prejudice held by workers against gays a factor in
the workers struggle? What strings connect gays with the
working class or the oppressed nationalities? How would
our efforts among gays augment and compliment our ef-
forts among workers. Blacks and Browns? You v/ould
have to stretch logic tortuously to try to make such a
35
case. On the contrary, a much better case can be made
for the argument that the disproportionate emphasis on
gay liberation based on the false notion that this issue
is in some way decisive to the success of the revolution —
or even an important contributor— will prove to be a
diversion in our approach . to oppressed nationalities,
workers and women. Undue emphasis on minor issues
can give an organization like ours an exotic image, erect-
ing barriers that cannot be justified by subsequent his-
torical development.
I Is there, however, such a link with the women's move-
■ ment? Perhaps sexual freedom is the common aspiration
f that serves as the link? That would mean then, that the
; issue of sexual freedom would have to be stressed by
■ us in the v/omen's movement as it must of necessity be
' stressed in the gay liberation movement. In my opinion,
that issue stressed by us in the women's movement would
; seriously hamper our efforts to build a mass movement
; of women, and isolate ourselves by alienating many
healthy women who are not yet prepared to fight around
the issue of winning sexual freedom.
• Sexual freedom, the right of individuals to determine
J their own sex lives unhampered and without interference
] from the state and society, is unchallengeable. But this
t right varies in importance depending on class position.
■ A woman who hasn't enough to eat for herself and her
I chUdren, or has difficulty affording contraceptives or abor-
J \ tions, or can't get a job with a living wage, or doesn't
lljl have the time or energy to expend in the pursuit of a
I full and free sex life as a consequence of the struggle
\ for survival, is less concerned and agitated by the re-
. i strictions imposed on sex by the state and society than
5 those more favorably positioned in the social and eco-
i: nomic order. It seems, on the contrary, that most women
i are repelled by what must appear to them to be an in-
f explicable preoccupation with sexual gratification. Expe-
I rience, on the face of it I would think, amply confirms
this judgment.
I Is it possible the growth of gay liberation wUl gradually
I cause a decline in prejudices against homosexuality with
J more and more practicing this way of life, thus under-
mining the bourgeois family, as some would have us
believe? The modern term encompassing this old idealist
concept is building a "counterculture." Is it necessary to
' remind some comrades that the family grows out of and
receives continual nourishment from the still too low level
of the productive forces (productive forces which are held
I back today only by capitalism) and the systems of pro-
duction based on private property? And that this class
institution will remain for a time even after the socialist
revolution, even under the most favorable conditions?
The bourgeois family cannot be abolished or educated
out of existence. It, like money, will wither and disappear
when it is no longer necessary.
Or can it be that because the abridged rights of gays
are part of the democratic struggle we have at last found
the link to the exploited and oppressed layers and estab-
lished the premise for the thesis that gay liberation is a
revolutionary force with some potential? At the risk of
I stretching an analogy, may I suggest that on that plane
I of equation we can put as peers, not only gays and op-
MSB
pressed nationalities but also many repressed religifl
sects, pacifists, atheists, proponents of defense of the rij
to bear arms and drug culture cults.
Can we for a moment believe that because the strug ^
of an oppressed nationality for self-determination i*'
the struggle of gay people to determine their sex lives a*
both democratic struggles, they are the same? Can t!]*« i
even be considered in the same league when you comp* im^
the size, weight, force, history, tradition, internatios
connection, class connection, etc. of the two? But m^
important, again, without the same aggravating and cc
pelling and infuriating social forces operating on the
Answering in the affirmative would reduce the perman^
revolution to an absurdity.
There are no driving forces that can impel in a m
-effort a significant portion of the claimed tens of milli
of gays out of the "closef and into their full struggle
their rights. Never before have such formations driv)
only by essentially psychological factors played any sig '
icant role in history. What basis then, would we have
intervening in gay liberation given the absence of s
driving forces?- None have yet been presented. (I will
bother to answer those motivated by moral consideratio
i.e., "oppression" is bad, period, and we have to do wL
ever is necessary to combat it.)
There is another kind of argument pro-gay interventia
orientation comrades have alluded to in support of th^
position. It only seems to be independent of the hal
perceived question of exploitation-oppression. Referen>
is made to the party's major stress on the anti-war mo-rt
ment as evidence that it is justifiable to take a "simpiT
democratic demand — the right of the people to decide ai
the question of war or peace — and make a major caa!
paign of it for a prolonged period, putting virtually al
our organizational resources at the disposal of this effoi
when necessary. This reference is calculated to prove tha
since both are democratic issues and both can be relatd
to by wide layers of the population, therefore, it follows
the potential for mass support for gay liberation is demos
strated. Again we find comrades so eager to justify a pj
sition they forget to think. A little thought, after all, wi
reveal that the. formal equality of the two is not at aJ
equal in life. Again no thought is given to measure — i
takes but a glance — the forces operating on the popuia
tion flowing out of the two democratic issues. The v,-^
issue involves the life and death of imperialism and ::
grim determination to halt the spread of the freedc =
struggle of the exploited and oppressed colonial people-
It concerns the very fuhire and continued existence
all humanity. It involves the attack on the living standar
of working people to pay for the enormous costs of t"
anti-human, intrinsically capitalist policy. Does m
really have to be said?
We now come to an entirely different sort of argumei
That if we intervene in the gay liberation organizatio
we can recruit (presumably) significant numbers of gay
And of course by intervention is meant to send comrac!
into the gay organizations, take leadership responsibilitii
and to help build new groups.
To intervene then, our party would of necessity ha
to project a line of propaganda 'and,^ organize actioi
36
i
lit
:3 the premise that gay liberation is indeed a pro-
revolutionary force. It would mean as well that
d have to continue to elevate gay oppression
ropaganda to the same level of force as the ex-
-oppression of oppressed nationalities, women
:-:ers. "Psychological oppression" would have to
rcey operative premise in this arena. We would
; a greater necessity to refer more young people
"latric writers of treatises — some of them of dubious
: credibility — explaining these psychological phe-
i. than to the traditional Marxist classics in order
; comrades could be "armed" to try to defend this
:ble line.
p: ^.jrt then: to intervene, given our approach to poli-
r.eans to advocate independent mass action as
"S of gay liberation organizations and coalitions,
further necessitates that wq formally adopt the thesis
zay liberation is a profound revolutionary force
■i:: as if we did)! One should ponder the consequences
-eaning of promoting a line one is not convinced
_y because of the conviction a high level of recruiting
izal is "certain."
ire either being asked, in effect, to accept recruit-
itiq
the!
ment potential (or rather the presumption of such poten-
tial) as proof of the thesis that gay liberation is a pro-
found revolutionary force, or I am afraid, we are being
asked to intervene "because we can recruif despite the
knowledge that gay liberation has no revolutionary role
to play. Rather than a step toward the strengthening
of the party, it is a dangerous step on the disastrous road
followed by every tendency that thought it had found a
new shortcut to rapid growth.
No matter what the outcome of the current discussion,
I'm convinced events will quite speedily bring reality home.
But unfortunately not without leaving even more disap-
pointed and embittered comrades than if we collectively
rubbed our eyes now, took a real good clear look, and
cleanly put an end to this chapter of the part>''s develop-
ment.
More important, by drawing all the correct lessons from
this whole chapter we can give a new dimension to the
understanding of the younger comrades in what a class
approach to politics is all about.
July 9, 1972
37
^
A REVIEW AND A COMMENT
(Vol. 30j No, 5)
by David Thorstad, Upper West Side Branch,
New York Local
III,
nil
ii!i
Sexuality and Homosexuality: A New View by Arno
Karleii. V/.W. Norton & Co. New York, 1971. 666 pages.
$15.
"Of the two hundred million people in the United States,
some ten million are or will become exclusive or pre-
dominant homosexuals— more than there are Jews or
Latin Americans," states author Karlen. "People Vv'ith at
least a few years' significant homosexual experience may
number more than bA'enty-five million — more than blacks.
Yet there is no 'problem' minority of which sociology
has learned so little."
Wfe-C?
One of the reasons so little is known aboutAhomosexuals
are and how thej' live and what they have contributed
to human history is that homosexual behavior has not
generally been considered a worthy subject for investi-
gation. Even in the recent past, for example, v/hen Kin-
sey's Institute for Sex Research decided to undertake a
study of homosexuality (still to be published), it was
turned down by ivjo dozen foundations. Even where homo-
sexuality' has been the object of scientific investigation,
the investigators have rarely been able to divest them-
selves of their proheterosexual bias. And Western scien-
tists studying homosexuality in other, more primitive,
cultures, Karlen points out, have done so through glasses
fogged by the Judeo-Christian tradition to which they
beloiig.
As a result, no work trying to make sense out of what
is known and claimed about homosexuality from history,
literature, and science has ever been done.
This book claims to do so. In the first sentence, Karlen
calls it "an act of presumption." And indeed it is. For
after dispensing with modesty in the first sentence, he
dashes into the hazardous and foggy fray of his subject
with his sword flailing, and in the process cuts down
hom.osexuality more than he does myths about it. His
"new view" is not so much new as it is a more sophisticated
presentation of the old tendency to deprecate homo-
sexuality. -If, in the process, some light is shed on homo-
sexual behavior throughout history and throughout the
world, it is in spite of Karlen' s heterosexual bias, which
keeps getting in his way.
Bias is not his only shortcoming. He is also a vulgar
empiricist. Thus, for instance, in his first chapter he dis-
misses the theory that early matriarchal societies were
replaced by patriarchal societies with a mere flick of the
hand: Life is too "confusing, disorderly and exciting" for
the theory of the matriarchy put fonvard by Bachofen,
Engels and Briffault to be of any use, concludes Karlen,
who remains undisturbed by his own inability to offer an
alternative explanation.
But theory admittedly may not be the empiricist's strong
point. Surely Karlen could be expected to fare better on
the more solid ground of facts. Alas, here too his bias
distorts the picture.
This is most crude in his chapter on homosexuality
in ancient Greece. Karlen's thesis is that "in ancient Gr^
homosexuality was considered a deviation; it was gr
positive value only by a minority of homosexuals,
sexuals and apologists. Neither did its presence in Gr^
have any relationship to social, artistic or political heali
This is a novel thesis because it flies in the face not o
of claims by authorities on the subject (such as H
Licht, whose Sexual Life in Ancient Greece Karlen hi
self describes in his exhaustive, annotated bibhogra
as "the most complete scholarly compendium on the s
ject," but then dismisses as "unfortunately, written w
a pervasive prohomosexual bias"), but even som.e of
facts Karlen himself presents. Most astonishing, hov/ev
is the fact that Karlen states his thesis without ever s
ously attempting to prove it.
The entire chapter reveals poor judgment — despite
occasional positive observation, such as his rejection
the notion that there is a causal relationship betwi
homosexuality and the downgrading of women ("ho
sexuality flourished more in the ancient world as woma:
position improved and her freedom increased"). Ite
"Probably the best source of ancient Greek attitudes towa,
homosexuality is Aristophanes." Actually, a writer of sati
ical comedies can hardly be considered the "best souri
in an objective search for attitudes. Moreover, not on^
was Aristophanes the only poet to constantly ridicuL,
pederasty, but he was v/riting in Athenian society (whic|
had not institutionalized homosexuality to the extent th^,
the Dorian society of Sparta had) at a time when publi^^
life was dominated by sophists, gossips, and
But Karlen does not want nuances and
plexities to slow his rush toward unsubstantiated, sweepini-
generalizations. , j,
His conclusion aboiyt the poet Sappho is simply ridi^j,,
ulous. He correctly pcbints out that only about 5 percei
of her writing remain^, thanks to the book -burning cr.^
sades of Christian zealots (around 380 A. D. the Bishc",,
of Constantinople ordered her books burned "wherever the^
were found," and Pope Gregory VII had many of th- -
remaining works burned in 1072). Yet while much cfc_.
what remains is homosexual in content, it contains nt _
explicit descriptions of the homosexual sex act. And si
Karlen concludes: "That she was a practicing homosexual, ^
is quite likely, but not certain." In other words, sincT-.
Sappho wrote merely good poetry, and not explicit porno- _
graphy, there is reason to doubt she was gay! All ti'^_-
would no doubt be funny if it weren't typical of Karlcn'L ._
reluctance to grant anything positive about homosexual^.,
and their history. ^,,.
At the end of several chapters in this book are inter- - .
views with homosexuals and scientists from various di
ciplines. These interviews are generally far more interestin
than what Karlen has to say. They are intended, he ex^
plains, to "illumunate what may otherwise seem like fanci
ful theories or speculations." And sometimes they do,
for instance those accompanying his informative chapte:
libertine^
historical con*^
38
t
lent Gre?s
was gh
exuals,
2 in Gig-
;a] healL. ,
e not g:
1 as H;.
arlen lii:
liograp.
a the SL_
■itten vv:
me of 1
hov/cv;
ever se:
transvestism and transexuality, the relationship be-
— hormones, genes, instinctual programming and im-
ag, environment and sexual behavior.
the interview following the chapter on Greece, however,
-- example of Karlen's reprehensible journalistic
_-:gue approach. To apparently "illuminate" his un-
itantiated theory about ancient Greece, he interviews
irj-pical male homosexual couple in present-day
-igo (that's Chicago, USA -not Chicago, Greece)!
.ver interesting their remarks may be, they shed little
on the love of Sappho for Cleis, Socrates for Al-
ios, or Achilles for Patroclus.
-r pervading assumption running through Sexuality
Homosexuality is that the least reliable source of
-r.ation on homosexuality is the homosexual or "pro-
sexual" person. To have an objective opinion about
: sexuality, you have to be heterosexual. This line
inking no longer holds water where Blacks and
en are concerned, but it is still the rule regarding
r-exuals. This book is a contemptible effort to shore
;h thinking.
"H-
uch
■"tLtr-
'Sting,
r-e^ preceding review was .submitted to The Militant
r ebruary. It was considered for publication during
-ay Pride Week issue at the end of June and rejected.
-r;.-a/% and Homosexuality — whose dust jacket de-
--. it as "the definitive explanation of human sexuality,
al and abnormal" -is a very lengthy, detailed, and
riie surface learned treatment of a subject that is of
est both to the gay liberation movement and to the
-homosexual ideologues of capitalist society. The thrust
-e book is to reinforce the efforts of the latter at the
-nse of the former. This no doubt would help explain
:-.ve review it received from the Neio York Time's
■-;pher Lehmann-Haupt in October of last year, a
a after it came out. It might also have more than
-dental relation to the fact that it has quickly qual-
- ;or the promotional efforts of the Book-of-the-Month
--- Author Karlen has become another "authority" on
: --sexuality and now graces platforms on the speakers'
:--e book has also been reviewed in the gay press, and
::und— in spite of its high price — to join the list of
-:i with which a certain familiarity can be assumed
-ig gay activists.
---. decision of The Militant not to run tlie review puz-
-^-e because I felt it met standards of length, quality,
ence, and timeliness; these standards were not un-
ar to me since I had helped edit the "In Review"
:ar more than a year.
- reasons the review was rejected, I was told, were
::ally two: It was "too erudite," and it Vent beyond"
-^ the SWP is at in terms of how it can or ought
--.ate to gay liberation. It was suggested that the re-
might more appropriately be submitted to a gay
:ation. ^
--sagree with both of these reasons. If I thought noth-
more than a personal disagreement was involved,
ourse, I would not raise it in tlie framework of a
ical discussion. But more than that appears to be
!ved. The incident raises certain questions about the
ionship bet^veen our press and the gay liberation
59
struggle that I would like to see cleared up by this dis-
cussion. It is in a spirit of candor and out of a genuine
desire to clarify this that I have submitted this item.
The objection that the review is "too erudite" is doubt-
less the lesser- though at the same time the more con-
crete-of the t^vo arguments. It appeared to be prompted
essentially by two brief references with which persons
who had not read the book might be unfamiliar -ped-
erasty and Aristophanes. On pederasty: I see no reason
why readers who do not know what pederasty is (for
the most part, these would probably be straight readers)
should object to looking the word up in a dictionary.
This IS preferable, in my opinion, to, say, adding a par-
enthetical explanation about this practice that played such
an important role in the sexual life of ancient Greece;
such an explanation would be absurd and condescending
in the context of such a review. To suggest that a ref-
erence to pederasty might perhaps be out of place in
a discussion of ancient Greece in a review of a book
on homosexuality would seem to me to imply one of
two beliefs: either tliat straight readers would "take of-
fense at the assumption tliat fliey should know something
about a practice they may go through life neither doing
nor knowing anyone who did; or that such a reference
is irrelevant and somehow out of place in a socialist
paper- specifically sexual references belonging more prop-
erly m the gay press. I don't think either one of these
arguments would be warranted.
The reference to Aristophanes, while it assumes a cer-
tain level of culture perhaps, does not necessitate any
knowledge of his work for the reader to get tlae point
He is identified as a satirist and tlie point is made that
whatever other things one may learn from a satirist,
an objective appreciation of the mores of a particular
epoch is not necessarily one of them. I tliink most readers
would understand tliis.
Sexuality and Homosexuality, y/hile its approach is
essentially a journalistic and popularizing one, neverthe-
less contains a great deal of 'learned" information on a
subject pervaded more with ignorance than intelligence
or understanding. Tlie fact that this is presented with
a definite antihomosexual bias and a considerable dose
of dishonesty will be welcomed by those who subscribe
to the prevailing notions of the inferiority of homosex-
uality; it will go unnoticed by readers unfamiliar with
any of the intelligent literature on the subject.
To expose this book properly and the way it deserves
to be exposed would require more space than The Mil-
itant is at this time prepared to grant It was in an ef-
fort to cope with tliis limitation that I decided that rather
than superficially skip through 666 pages, it would be
more meaningful to readers who had not read the book
if I were concrete and dealt at some length with one typ-
ical and significant chapter. Even in view of the space
limitations, I believe that this approach provides the read-
er witii an honest idea of the kind of proheterosexual
prejudice that this society requires and acclaims in its
"authorities" on homosexuality.
The argument that the review somehow "Vent beyond"
what can properly be said on the subject of gay libera-
tion in the pages of The Amitant (even in a review, which,
it might be added, is not a 'Tme" article) is an argument
of a more serious nature, in my opinion. It was, unfor-
tunately, an argument advanced more, it seems, on the
basis of a general "feeling" than ^n well thought-out cri-
teria. I thinlc that, where possible, clear-cut guidelines
should be laid down, and if indeed such guidelines al-
ready exist, I think they should be stated candidly. The
problem, in other words, is, jtist what is the line beyond
which articles and reviews in our press cannot go? In-
deed, just where is tlie SWP "at" in terms of relating to
gay ' liberation through its press? Frankly, I now find
myself somewhat uneasy in attempting to answer Uiese
questions because of the prevailing ambiguities, because
of tlie apparent unanimity when it comes to deciding
that a line has definitely been crossed, and the no less
apparent lack of a clearly articulated definition of what
that line is.
Perhaps some comrades feel tliat it is out of Ime for
the SWP or its press to take a position, so to speak, on
whether or not homosexuality is good. Perhaps they feel
that this review Vent beyond" where the SWP is at be-
cause it implicitly assumes that homosexuality' is good;
indeed, it does not pretend to stand aloof of this ques-
tion but stands foursquare, witlrout being obtrusive or
browbeating, on the notion that gay is good. If com-
rades feel that where the SWP is at in its public position
is a sort of neutral zone on the question of homosex-
uality—neither good nor bad, the product of causes so
complex, and an issue perhaps so divisive, tliat it is un-
desirable to take a position on tlie normality of homo-
sexual unpulses— then it would be a positive contribu-
tion to this discussion for such a belief to be stated fortlv
rightly. In my opinion, such a position would be both
politically and scientifically unsound.
It would appear to me, in fact, tlmt it is precisely this
underlying assumption of the review that homosexuality
is good, and the fact that it does not even occur to the
reviewer to suspend judgment on the question, tliat tlie
comrades regarded with some discomfort. This is cer-
tainly the impression that the somewhat vague notion
of "going beyond" conveys. If so, such an approach woi
reveal a rather serious misunderstanding of the prop
relationship between the revolutionary party and the gi
liberation struggle. In my opinion, it is unrealistic
think tliat the SWP can come to terms widi gay liben
tion without a position recognizing that homosexual!,
is both normal and good. This does not mean adM
eating homosexuality. It does mean rejecting any of
sexist notions that homosexuality is a deviation, an ;
normality, or a sickness. There are no doubt comrac
who stiJl believe that homosexuality is a sickness
something not quite normal This would not be surpri
ing since tliis is also the prevailuag view of the sexJ
society in which we have all been brought up. But a
existence of such notions cannot, be allowed to obstruj
the presentation of a proper, positive attitude toward h;
mosexuality in our press.
This has already been done — in my article "Hon:
sexuality: Fact versus Myth" in the July 2, 1971, iss.
of The Militant, for example, which advances, with a:- ;
propriate scientific backing, the argumient that homosei-.j,,
uality is a normal expression of human sexual cap£:-f
ities inherent in the human animal. While tliis article ^M~,
no more a 'line" article than the review of Karlen's booi
it certainly suggested that the party took a forthrig-
position behind the concept that gay is good. I am qui^
aware of the fact that some comrades found tliis notion-
as well as the article- disturbing; tliey felt it 'Vent beyonii
where the SWP is "at." But does this mean tliat artick
reflecting such an approach are now no longer considere
appropriate for publication in our press? If so, our abili'
to discuss homosexuality and gay liberation in our press
woifld be subjected to an incorrect, unscientific, and i:>-.t^^rss
justifiable limitation. ^ ^ _ ^:r-_;
Candid answers to these questions can, in my opiniorLrjrHir
only serve to help clarify this discussion. im xs
: 5£
July 14, 1975
40
4
'3l. 30, No, '5)
BASIC QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE ANSWERED
by John Lauritsen, Upper West Side Branch,
New York Local
Revolutionary Theory There Can Be No Revolu-
'- Movement
rrs to certain basic questions are central to develop-
^-eory of gay liberation. Such questions must be
rd — and answered scientifically — as: Is there a nat-
;;2riority of heterosexual behavior over homosex-
A homosexual behavior increase or decrease in
; society?
i.ddition, though more subjective, we must ask: Will
5rxual love occupy an honored place in a free and
^uman culture? Will homosexuality be considered
-able characteristic for tlie sons and daughters of
list future?
"^ eay good?
..- answers to these questions will determine whether
jivolvement in gay liberation will merely consist of
_ libertarian fight for the democratic rights of mis-
:r whether it will involve a more profound struggle
-II— lan reason, with revolutionary implications.
- .-ny opinion we cannot expect to recruit gay activists
i=;er\re the respect of gay comrades on a position of
inon." Enough evidence is available for Marxists to
conclusions on the above questions, and we must
^the intellectual courage to do so.
ri fed Comrade Barry Sheppard is mistaken when he
"Leaving aside all discussion about why horno-
rzcX hnpulses exist, or why a section of tlie population
L"i-s homosecuality, which need not concern us in trying
■srAerstand the nature of the oppression of gay people.
.'(emphasis added)*
[ believe these and similar questions do concern us,
they concern us because, as Lenin put it, ". . . the
of a vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party
is guided by the most advanced theory." (What Is
Tc S? Done— emphasis in original)
Also relevant is Lenin's conviction, expressed by quoting
'profoundly true and important words of Karl Kaut-
■*: "Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on
basis of profound scientific knowledge." (op. cit -
rhasis added)
There is less room for impressionism, "gut feelings,"
any other type of subjectivism in the present discussion
gay liberation than in any which has taken place in the
ialist movement— precisely because no otlier area of
cussion is so laden v/ith deep-seated fear and prejudice,
disgraceful exclusionary policy of the 1960s is witness
the latter.
I will grant, however, that Sheppard's brief and rather
:..7ral contribution would have been much longer and
:c cumbersome if he had attempted to deal with every
-:nane issue; and he may have intended to leave the
; velopment of these questions to the literary discussion
irif, which would be entirely understandable
I
Homosexual Acts Represent Natural, Completely Human
Forms Of Behavior
My own position can be stated succinctly. I feel that
homosexual acts represent natural, completely human
forms of behavior. I further believe that there is no natural
superiority of heterosexual over homosexual behavior.
Or phrased another way, the human animal is gay (of
course I include the so-called 'Tai-sexuals" in the gay cate-
gory, since the groat majority of those who are homo-
sexually oriented are also heterosexually oriented).
I presented evidence for these positions m my first bul-
letin. Other comrades have presented further evidence. I
shall not repeat tlie arguments here.
If Comrades Feel Homosexuality Is Unnatural . .
Some comrades (and most Americans) would not agree
wifl-i these positions. If anyone feels a quite different analy-
sis of human sexuality is correct, I strongly urge him or
her to write it down and submit it to this discussion. Open
debate is the precondition for theoretical unity, and hence,
for a strong intervention into the living class struggle.
I feel constrained to qualify this somewhat. Contributions
should be serious, and a certain degree of knowledge
is essential for a reasoned analysis of sexuality. The Intel- •
ligent literature on sexuality is limited, and most sex
literature is the foulest idealist garbage.
At a bare minimum, two books must be read in order
to have any understandmg of homosexuality. Tliey are:
Homosexual Behavior Among Males by Wainwright
Churchill, and Patterns of Sexual Behavior by C. S. Ford
and F. A. Beach. Both are available in paperback, and
I see no reason why every branch bookstore should not
carry tliem. I don't agree with everything in tliese hvo
books, but I do feel that no intelligent discussion is possi-
ble without having studied them. Three or four evenings
of reading is not too much to ask of those who would
contribute to the discussion.
There is much other literature — some essential for a
comprehensive analysis, most of it foolishness. I am con-
fident tliat the tiieorists of the revolutionary party can
deal with the ideas of such charlatans and nincompoops
as tlie medical "authorities," Doctors Reuben, Bergler,
Bieber, and Socarides, or such lay fools as Norman
Mailer, Arno Karlen, or Joseph Epstein. A Marxist move-
ment must be capable of rebutting bourgeois psychiatrists
and moralists as well as bourgeois economists, sociolo-
gists, historians, etc. If we can't do this, tlien we have no
business intervening in the gay liberation movement Or
any other movement Indeed, we ought to dissolve.
A Special Plea To The Leadership
It seems to me that a prerequisite for party democracy
is knowing how our leaders stand on basic questions,
knowing the reasons behind a course of action or non-
action.
A certain holding-back with regard to involvement in
gay liberation has been evident in the past year, partially
owing, I believe, to the lack of a generally accepted Trot-
skyist analysis, the development of which is the purpose
41
shrink desr-j
d, pastebr. '''*"
ural. Anc
Tcally 11 a:
iing anim;
llianUy de-
Liidens.
■y this I m-:
stent with
■ they will
wiil devej
but we h£
and worn;
ich we h£i
:ion").
-ust be able to demonstrate how the threat of being
as "queer" acts in obstructing revolutionary con-
.ess and in keeping people in place.
In sum, we must be able to describe the role oppression
of homosexuals plays in the class struggle.
These are the subjects for subsequent analyses.
July 24, 1972
A COMMENT ON COMRADE
NAT WEINSTEIiN'S CONTRIBUTION
by Lee Smith, Upper West Side Branch,
New York Local
In
', Sophocla
id, Marlon
lo (j/es,
de, Virgi
Rimb2
nnumera:
er the
:now ahoi
ary figu:
• It WO--
is simpj
in socic
iy is na^
more p;
erely cc_
racterisj
:-ade Nat Weinstein's contribution squarely addresses
■ : understand is supposed to be tlie subject of the cur-
;;-rary discussion. ITiat is, what should be the party's
:tion to the gay liberation movement. Comrade
:?:sin writes that we should continue our position
i^;onditional support to the struggles of homosexuals
riJ democratic rights, including full civil and human
.--=, and against aU the forms of discrimination and
tresslon they suffer under capitalism.
':.-:irade Weinstein argues, however, that the party
.-- not intervene in the gay movement, by which
-tans, he explains, "to send comrades into the gay
•lations, take leadership responsibiliiies and to help
i.v groups."
-,-ee with both of tliese propositions, and, as I under-
-.t, this ^is basically the position Comrade Barry
.'d har
has bee-
;t, hom>-
'ting roi:'
peril a:
iless a.-
nally?
i'iew tl:.
its do;-,
irs. N;
r of our
)t of c;
taken in the initial article in this discussion.
: there is more to Comrade V/einstein's contribution
-. these hvo propositions. Related to his conviction
- "^e gay movement by its nature is not going to de-
into anything that calls for a party intervention is
--.:, separate idea. WhiJ.e related, this idea is distinct,
-: has to do with his being troubled, as a political,
_ -i^uilding person, by tlie confusion the whole gay
■ition issue has engendered (or revealed) in tlie party.
:ade Weinstein expresses the wish that we will col-
- -:ly rub our eyes, cleanly end "this chapter of the
y's development," draw "all the correct lessons from
vhole chapter," and in so doing, give a "new dimen-
to the understanding of the younger comrades in
■ a class approach to politics is all about."
-istinguish between this desire for cleaning up the
-iion and Comrade Weinstein's evident belief that
a cleanup involves adopting his assessment of the
-novement's potential role in the class struggle. I
so because I disagree with the particular assessment
has made (while endorsing the basic approach he
is tried to follow). But I wholeheartedly share his de-
- for the party to clean up the confusion that has made
sible the kind of arguments he disputes in his article.
I ir.yone believes Comrade Weinstein has constructed him-
■ some straw men to duel with, tliat person only need
"It the other articles in this discussion to see that
■ades are really putting forward the sort of argu-
" he writes about. Some of them seem totally detached
any understanding of what the party is and what
seeks to become. Most unply at least some confusion
on the question.
A Basically Correct Approach
"Our politics begin," Comrade Weinstein writes
with
the fundamental premise that the workers are the class
destined by history to lead the mass to the overthrow
of capitalism and the creation of a new society. Our fun-
damental task is to build the instrument that is capable
of leading the class toward its accomplishment of this
historic mission." This is pretty basic. It ought to go
wit].iout saying tliat tiie literary discussion, like all of our
other activity, proceeds on this foundation. This discussion
is aimed toward our taking a decision respecting the
allocation of our resources and energies vis-a-vis the gay
liberation movement
Comrade Weinstem is at pains to shov/ that tlie very
nahrre of homosexual oppression precludes tlie develop-
ment of admass fight against it I believe he errs in his
analysis of gay oppression. But whatever errors he makes,
Comrade Weinstein proceeds with a basically correct ap^
proach -keeping his eye on what potential the gay move-
ment has to advance the class struggle and build the
party.
Although he advocates continuing the party's present
course witli regard to the gay movement, however. Com-
rade Weinstein neglects to point out the positive effect
this course has had in building the party. By taking
a correct position in defense of homosexual rights and
making tliat position clear in our press, speeches, and
campaign leaflets, the party has not only won new respect
from the more conscious vanguard where %ve recruit today
but from much wider layers where we will recruit tomor-
row. We adopted this position not in a context where it
marks us as kooks and dangerously isolates us, but
quite to the contrary at a tune when it puts us right at
the cutting edge of changing public opinion.
It would be a mistake for us to do more than v,'e are
already doing in the absence of any development toward
a campaign or formation \t\ which we could productively
intervene. But we should be clear that we have benefited
from what we have already done.
Comrade Weinstein /Says he is convinced "events will
quite speedily bring rt^ality home." In regard to our present
position, I believe they already have
43
July 28, 1972
HISTORY, DOCUMENTS AND ANALYSIS OF THE
GAY LIBERATION MOVEMENT AND PROPOSED
OUTLINES FOR PARTY GAY WORK
(Vol. 30, No. 6) by Michael Maggi, Los Angeles Branch
The rise of the gay liberation movement has been one
of the more sudden, dramatic and unexpected of all Oie
movements in the United States and around the world.
Only a few years ago, almost everyone in the country,
including many gay persons, believed gays were "sick,"
deformed by overbearing mothers, mindless exhibitionists
and probably prone to criminal acts. Now hundreds of
gay liberation groups exist in the cities, colleges and high
school campuses of every state. Gays are organizmg within
all sectors of the population— as gay women in lesbian
feminist organizations; as Blacks, Chicanos and Puerto
Ricans in nationalist gay organizations; in professional
groups, churches and unions. (This process is also
beginning in other parts of the world, although at a slower
pace than m the United States.)
Gay Liberationist Consciousness
The gay liberation movement is a product of the broader
radicalization that is taking place today, but at the same
time it is at the heart of this radicalization. The women's
liberation movement, while also drawing strength from the
motion of gay women, has had the greatest impact with
its concepts of sisterhood, all-female organization, con-
sciousness-raising activities and militant mass actions.
All this helped to "create a climate where gays who saw
their heretofore secret "personal" problems transformed
into political and social problems. These problems and
the situation gays found themselves in was to be moved
against by a movement of gays demanding an abolition
to all forms of oppression and discrimination, rather than
individual actions by each person to find a comfortable
niche in the world through an accomodation within
societj''s standards.
Gays are standing up proudly to demand an end to all
the laws, customs and social institutions that oppress and
exploit us. Toleration is a crumb dropped from the plate of
the oppressor in the hopes of satisfying our hunger for
liberation and derailmg our movement. But liberation is
our goal — from all forms of oppression and discrimina-
tion. There is nothing inherent in homosexuality that is
sick, psychotic, decadent, unnatural, immoral, depraved,
deformed, incomplete or funny. Homosexuality is the
capacity to love a person of the same sex.
"Gay is Good" is a slogan reflecting the same pride,
insolence, self-identity and group consciousness that
"Sisterhood is Powerful" represents for the women's libera-
tion movement or "Black is Beautiful" for the Black move-
ment. Tliis slogan and the gay movement are giant steps
forward for the gay men and women who have been the
most persecuted, divided and brainwashed oppressed
group in history.
Gays have had their sexuality deformed, distorted and
oppressed to the extent that many millions of gays never
had fulfilling lives — wither in terms of their relationships
with people in general or their sexual lives. Cowed into
submission by society's demands and standards, many
of us find ourselves trapped uato families and relationships
I-
that attempt to transform us into different persons
our own individual closets we were alienated from eai
other and ourselves. Growing up in heterosexual famili
and groomed for mother/wife and father/husband rol
we never had the opportunity to understand that the
are millions and millions of us. We internalized our "pe.-r
sonal failure" to live up to the standards of feminity anjn
masculinity. We felt ashamed and fearful because we we.-j*
not the "real" women and "real" men "made by God" an:^
put here to form a "great nation."
Our isolation, fear and sense of shame forced us in:iit
closets as our sexuality was taking shape and even before;
we fully realized our sexual identity. Being in a close
means trying to think and act as our oppressor — the idea!
of men and women. Forced secrecy is fundamental to thi
closet, but a gay person's oppression doesn't end ther
The closet forces gays to accept personal conformity I^l
clothing, politics, and morality. A closet is our total forcez-
social conformity. Rejection of this and "coming out"Ji
a first step of gays moving massively against all th-iL
institutions that oppress us. 1
For a gay person to "come out" it is not necessary tc r
fulfill a checklist of activities such as informing one'E
parents, employer and every straight friend of one's sexual
orientation. Coming out is a much more important funda-
mental overhaul of a gay's life. Rejecting the absolute
secrecy of a gay's sexual orientation is important Bu:
coming out is really the rejection of all the social norms
forced upon us and our rejection of society's right to si:
in judgment of what is "sick," "immoral" or "criminal" ir.
the sexual lives of people v/ho only v/ish to love each
other. Coming out is asserting a person's humanity and
dignitj' as a gay person. Coming out is taking to the
streets to demand an end to our unjust oppression and the
oppression of tens of millions of others like us.
Many gays may never come out (under capitalism), bu:
the development of tlie gay liberation movement, and its
further development into a massive movement, encourages
gays to act in their own defense and for their own demands
in other areas of life— as women, as students, as workers
and as members of oppressed nationalities, etc.
The Roots of the Gay Liberation Movement
David Thorstad explains the modern origins of anti-
gay laws in France and England in his contribution,
"Antigay Laws in the United States and Some Otlier
Countries." The revolutionary upheavals in France in the
eighteenth century abolished the Iav>'s against gays through
the omission of tlie "unnatural vice" laws from the legal
codes. This action taken by the French Constituent
Assembly in 1791 v/as a major step forward for the rights
of gays. In 1861, England abolished the death penality
for gays only to enact further laws against homosexuality,
"outrageous behaviour," "gross indecency" and "lewd con-
duct," etc.
It was apparently not until the 1890's tliat a movement
developed of homosexuals and humanitarian straights
E
44
rsons. bii.-
rom ea;.
1 farnili:
■nd rolt: .
hat the:
our "pe;
Jiity an;
i we werrp
rod" and^-
! us int:^
^p rgected the prevailing official morality.
^m. England, Edward Carpenter organized a committee
W-t_:ate people on issues regarding gay sexuality and
« : pagandize against the antigay laws. One major
Abc -1 the public limelight at tlie time was the convic-
ItaE ind imprisonment of Oscar Wilde under one of the
^»-- enacted laws. Carpenter held to the existing view
IE -,- gays and straights, that homosexuals were an
>- separate category of human being— a third sex.
no scientific studies of sexual behavior to base
-lories on, tliis is understandable. (This view of gay
-vy is explained by Kurt Hiller, a proponent of
-3ry, in a speech to the Second International Con-
lor Sexual Reform in Copenhagen in 1928. His
-, entitled "A 1928 Appeal for Homosexual Rights,"
printed in the May, 1971, International Socialist
-..-.)
Pinter's activities v/ere generally of a secretive nahire
. attempt to educate and solicit compassion from
.nilarian members of Parliament.
1898, the noted sex scholar, Dr. Mangus Hirsch-
established tlie
), but
id its
rages
ands
rkers
anti-
tion,
ither
ithe
'Ugh
5gal
lent
fhts
lity
ity,
on-
scientific Humanitarian Committee
lany to educate tbic public and organize for legal
Hirschfeld and this committee became internation-
known. (Tae Bolsheviks were later to base thek
Ion on homosexuality partially on Hirschfeld 's work
utUized his writings in the Soviet Encyclopedia. The
>-clopedia was rewritten as the Stalinist bureaucracy
;d to reenact laws against homosexuality and ended
Soviet goyernment's tolerant and scientific approach
"^mosexuaiity. )
-is tendency toward the formation of small semi-secret
onixl and legal reform societies continued into the
^tieth century. The International Committee on Sex
lality brought gay and gay-rights groups into contact
each other and spread what little educational material
was to all parts of the world.
1936, a nmnber of homosexuals from various coun-
fonned a gay colony on Nawa Sangga island in the
of Siam. Tliis group went through various periods
different names including the Han Temple Organi-
-1 (1940), tlie Movement for the Study of Homosexual
^-.::ems (1948, at which time the group moved to an
pdonesian island), and finally the Homosexual World
-panization (circa 1950), Around this time tlie group es-
-;3hed a magazine with international circulation in an
pt to enchauge scientific information on hom-osaxual-
and the status of efforts to reform the law.
Several
ent
hts
I
itionally famous persons were connected with this
-p, including Andre Gide. The Homosexual World
- mlzation contacted Asian homosexual groups to publi-
-r tlieir existence and to demonstrate the naturalness of
-V sexuality. Some of the Asian groups were hundreds
■ pears old, including the Buddha-Shakti Sect of Siam, the
pli Rooms of Macao, the Moon Flower Rooms of China
the Sons of Mauna Loa of Hawaii. Around 1952
- organization vanished (there doesn't seem to be any
formation available as to the cause).
- -.e Development of the Gay Movement in the
V-iited States (1920-1950)
I have little detailed information on the organizations
: this period. However, they can be characterized as
believing that homosexuals were a tliird sex, being secret
45
or semisecret organizations, and almost exclusively mala
Some of these groups claimed memberships of several
hundred, but all of them were short-lived. They were
never able to develop stable leaderships and organiza-
hons. Some of these groups included the Society for Hu-
man Rights (Chicago, 1925), Sons of Hamidy (midwest
and western states, 1934), Legion of the Damned (New
York and Chicago, 1940s), Veterans Benevolent Asso-
ciahon (1940s) and the Bachelors for Henry Wallace
(national, 1948).
The crippling sectarian third-sex approach was always
to pit a small section of gays against Uie much larger
number of gays that were sunply labeled "straight" by
the unqualified nahire of the either-or categories. (This
is anotlier verification of the necessity for correct theory.)
The Development of the Gay Movetnent in the
United States (1950-1969)
Tne organizations that emerged in the early 1950s gave
the gay movement its first national scope with permanent
groups.
Tne Mattachine Society (first known as the Mattachme
Foundation) was formed on July 7, 1950, in Los Angeles.
Its first organizers came from the Bachelors for Wallace
organization a couple of years before. The Mattachine
Society had members of both sexes, but was predominant-
ly male. In tlie mid- 1960s, tliis group claimed a dues-
paying membership of around 1500 nationally.
^ The Daughters of Bilitis (DOB) was formed in San,
Francisco in 1953. Of course, this group was entirely
female. DOB claimed a membership of over 1000 nation-
ally and may still be around the same size.
Both groups were organized after tlie publication of
the Kinsey sbjdies. These gave tliese new groups impor-
tant scientific weapons with ^vhich to combat pr'^udice.
The social upheavals around and after the war opened
up the abnosphere slightly to the new things Kmsey,
and more importantly, tliese new groups were saying.
The initial activities of these groups were to educate
gays with the Kinsey findings, encourage self-confidence,
fight limited battles for civU rights and to function as
a social organization.
BoOi groups gave birtli to national publications tliat
advanced the dissemination of Kinsey's ideas and built
the Mattachine Society and DOB.
One, Incorporated, was established by a split from Mat-
tachine in 1952. One, Inc. in Los Angeles held weekly
classes on sexuality and the legal situation and soon
opened offices in Chicago, Detroit, New York City and
Phoenix. This magazine carried on an extensive piiblish-
ing schedule Previous to One Magazine, no homosexual
publication could be sent tlirough the maUs. It was only
in 1958 tliat a federal court ruled that gay publications
were protected by tlie first amendment
In 1956, the DOB began publishing T!ie Ladder. This
is stm the most widely read lesbian publication. Since the
rise of the femmist movement. The Ladder has adopted
a pro-women's liberation position which has related the
DOB to both tlie gay and feminist movements.
Tlie first demonstrations during the current radicaliza-
tion demanding civil liberties for gays occurred in Phila-
delphia on July 4, 1964. This was a picket line around
the Federal building of some 30-60 persons demanding
an end to job discrimination, an end to the victimization
of gays in the military and draft system, and tlie repeal
of all antigay sex laws such as the sodomy and solicita-
tion laws. In later years, tliese demonstrations occurred
in Washington, D. C, San Francisco, Chicago and other
cities.
Tlie North American Conference of Homophile Orga-
nizations (NACHO) is a national gay coalition formed
in 1966. The Mattachine Society and the Daughters of
Bilitis were the initial organizers of NACHO and remain
its main pillars of support. This group holds yearly na-
tional conferences and occasionally regional gatherings.
Its main purpose is to lobby in state legislatures for penal
code reform of a liberal nature. This group has never
called a demonstration.
NACHO has affiliated organizations in almost all ma-
jor cities. These groups are usually Mattachine Societies
or DOB chapters, although in some cities they may have
otlier names such as the Society for Individual Rights
in San Francisco or the Circle of Friends in Dallas.
NACHO's influence had never been great in the state
capitols, but with the emergence of the gay liberation
movement, their lobbying efforts have had minimum suc-
cesses.
Episodic and semi-spontaneous demonstrations and law
suits generally revolving around job discrimination and
police harassment steadily increased over the years.
For example, in the spring of 1969 the California Com-
mittee for Homosexual Freedom was formed and con-
ducted a public campaign to force the States Steamship
Lines and Tower Records, botli in San Francisco, to re-
hire employees fired for being gay. For several weeks
picketing was conducted in both places with extensive
coverage in the gay and straight press. Tlie struggle
failed in the States Steamship Lines case but was vic-
torious in the Tower Records case.
Tliese actions, along with all the other events in the
United States and the world, advanced tlae consciousness
of the gay community and set the stage for the explosion
at Stonewall. More and more gay people were becoming
inspired by the struggles of a few gays and tlie mass
social struggles of the other oppressed.
The Gay Movement from Stonewall to the Present ' '
(June 27, 1969- )
The police attack upon gays in the Stonewall Inn on
Christopher Street in New York City on June 27, 1969,
sparked the appearance of the gay liberation m.ovement
with its own particular attitudes toward actions, orga-
nization and demands tliat went well beyond tlie best ef-
forts of the first gay organizations that developed in the
early '50s and before.
In August, 1969, the NACHO conference met in Kansas
City and was confronted by the NACHO Youth Com-
mittee which proposed a document entitled, "A Radical
Manifesto— The Homophile Movement Must Be Radical-
ized!" Although this 12-point resolution lost on all votes
to the conservatives, it marked the new mood among
younger gays and the development of gay liberation.
The document read:
"1) We see the persecution of homosexuality as part
of the general attempt to oppress all minorities and keep
them powerless. Our fate is linked with these minorities;
if Hie detention camps are fUlcd tomorrow with blacks,
hippies, and other radicals, we will not escape that fate,
all our attempts to dissociate ourselves from them not-
witlistanding. A common struggle, however, will b:
common triumph.
"2) Therefore we declare our support as homosexui
or bisexuals for the struggles of the black, the femi:
the Spanish-American, the Indian, the Hippie, the You
the Student and the other victims of oppression and p
judice [sic].
"3) V/e call upon these groups to lend us their suppa
and encourage their presence with NACHO and the homi
phile movement at large.
"4) Our enemies, an implacable, repressive governmea
al system, much of organized religion, business and med
cine, will not be moved by appeasement or appeals
reason and justice, but only by power and force.
"5) We regard established heterosexual standards
morality as immoral and refuse to condone them :
demanding an equality which is merely the common yoi
of sexual repression.
- "6) We declare that homosexuals, as individuals
members of the greater community, must develop homi
sexual ethics and estetics independent of, and withoi
reference to, tlie mores imposed upon hetero sexuality [s
"7) We demand the removal of all restL'iction on ;
between consenting persons of any sex, of any orientatic
of any age, any^vhere, whether for money or not, and fi
the removal of all censorship.
"8) We call upon the churches to sanction homosex".
liaisons when called upon to do so by the parties c
cerned.
"9) We call upon the homophile movement to be m
honestly concerned with youth rather than trying to p
mote a mythical, non-existent 'good public image.' [sic]
"10) The homophile movement must totally reject
insane war in Viet Nam and refuse to encourage cc:
plicity in the war and support of the war machine, w
may well be turned against us. We oppose any atter
by the movement to obtain security clearances for ho
sexuals, since these contribute to tlie war machine.
"11) The homophile movement must engage in
tinuous political struggle on all fronts.
"12) We must open the eyes of homosexuals on
continent to the increasingly repressive nature of our
ciety and to the realizations that Chicago may await
tomorrow [sic]."
In the East Coast, especially New York City, Gay
eration Fronts (GLFs) were beginning to organize
a new basis than the old-line homophile groups. At
GLFs took an interventionist attitude toward NACi
and its affiliate regional conferences. GLFs introdt
resolutions to support antiwar activities, support w(
en's liberation activities, and support campaigns in
fense of Black Panthers victimized by the state. In
main, these resolutions were too general and radi:
sounding to be endorsed by the more conservative or
nizations and coalitions. However, the following is
kind of resolution that v/as submitted to conferences
adopted, even though it was only the GLFs that bees
actively involved in actions called by other mover
organizations.
Tlie following is a resolution adopted by the East
Regional Conference of Homophile Organizai
(ERCHO) meeting in Philadelphia on November
1969:
46
will brin
miosexuj
le femir
the Youni
n and prt
jir suppc ■
the hoir.
jvernmer
and me^
appeals i>-
idards o
them t;
mon yoJaj
I
luals an;
op hoir.
i witho.
ality [siCj
n on Si
ientatio
, and fi
TLOsexu.
rties co:
be
mo
ved, that tlie Eastern Regional Conference of Homo-
Organizations considers these inalienable human
above and beyond legislation:
jminion over one's own body
■--.rough sexual freedom without regard
:r:entation
--rough freedom to use birth control and abortion
.rough freedom to ingest the drugs of one's own
-edom from society's attempts to define and limit
\?-n sexuality, which are inherently manifested in
iconomic, educational, religious, social, personal
legal discrimination.
-eedom from social and political persecution of all
-jrity groups:
::edom from tlie insti^ationalized inequalities of the
structure and the judicial system
t freedom and the right of self-determination of all
: irassed minority groups in our society
; specifically condemn the systematic and widespread
-iicution of certain elements of these minorities, in-
_-:iLig all political prisoners and those accused of crimes
T-.'iiout victims (e.g., homosexuals)."
;e militancy and independence shown in tlie NACHO
-•la Committee resolution and tlie ERCHO resolution
developed to a much greater degree in the emerging
Liberation Fronts. Many of these groups split and
ime uUraleft, but it is miportant to consider their con-
-rions to tlie gay liberation movement, as well as to
il on their shortcomings.
y to pj.^^, -omrades should read Carl Whiitman's "Refugees from
■"[sic] '*^-~i"ika: A Gay Manifesto." This is one of the first docu-
•eiect th-*^ '" °^ ^^° "^^ liberation movement.
It will give com-
tge com-
e, whic- —_
attempts
r ho
mo-
m con-..
on thii
our so-
Lwait ui
ay Lit
nize 01
At firs
■ACH(
oduce
t wom-l
in de
In thfl
adicalH
; orga-j
is thq
es and
lecame
cement]
astern
ationsl
■ 1-2,
j more of a feel for the new mood of the gay move-
: and a sense of its history. )
le most important contribution of the GLFs was to
-ance, in no uncertain terms, the necessity for direct
jns by gays in our own self-interest to combat our
-•ession. The GLFs engaged in marches, sit-ins, picket
i. and interventions into meetings called by profes-
~ . - ai, religious and political organizations. No one was
■:: : Lmportant or liberal to "embarrass" at public meetings
questions from tlie floor or pickets outside. No body
people was too sacrosanct to challenge their bigoted
ides or complicity in tiie oppression of gays.
The GLFs had an aggressive attitude in spreading and
iping to develop other GLFs in other cities and states.
se groups, mainly campus-based, eventually sprung
on every major campus in every part of the country.
fBesides actions, the GLFs' concentration on conscious-
ss-raising groups drew thousands of people to GLFs
rer a period of time. This enabled the organizers of the
»y movement to talk to their "independents" about gay
"le and strategies for the gay movement This was a
lajor focus for all the GLF organizations.
The drawbacks in GLFs also sprung from the fact
it it was a product of this radicalization. There were
>ng tendencies towards counterculturalism and anti-
idership that were to be the fatal errors in the GLF
icture.
"Hie "unstructured" nature of the organization led, as
only could, to an inability to maintain stable organiza-
jns and democratic leaderships. The real leadership
refore fell to various people who could not develop any
program for action by the gay movement or discuss
47
out perspectives for building a mass gay liberation move-
ment This was true no matter how sincere and capable
these activists were in their own right In this way, it was
to be expected that the groups would develop multi-issue
approaches to the radicalization as a whole and fall into
the trap of ultraleftism.
First on their incorrect approach to other movement
organizations. ITie gay activists in the GLFs were never
able to realize they could not build the GLFs into rev-
olutionary socialist gay organizations — no matter how
much they talked about the need for revolution and at-
tempted to build a movement GLFs began giving un-
critical support to all the movement organizations, espe-
cially the Black Panfliers. GLF began demonstrating with
other women's organizations, student and Black organiza-
tions, to protest the war, women's oppression, racism,
etc. In exchange for their support, they demanded and
expected support in return. Tliey had no concept of build-
ing broad civil liberties defense committees or broad ac-
tion coalitions on a single or a few related demands. They
approached other organizations and expected to work
out complete programmatic agreements.
The GLFs developed the tactic of the "zap" to publicize
their demands. These zaps tended to be semi-disrupdve
interventions by a few or a few score gays into the meet-
ings of professional, religious and political groups. Tliese
zaps into meetings were a very positive initial development
in demanding that gays be recognized as persons with
something to say and grievances to be redressed. How-
ever, this perspective of zaps had a strong tendency to
substitute a small number of gays as an activist "van-
guard" while most gays would learn of the action from
the media and be "inspired" to take some unspecified ac-.
tion themselves.
ITie program of the Gay Liberation Fronts — insofar
as there was one — was a 20- or 25-point series of pro-
posals, slogans and demands essentially demanding the
total abolition of everytliing this country stands for (see
appended statements by Houston GLF). This isn't a bad
position to have in tlie abstract, but the demands included
on an equal basis slogans such as "abolish tlie family"
and "abolish the sodomy and solicitation laws." The first
could only be gained by a complete transformation of
society under socialism while the second is a revolutionary
democratic demand capable of mobilizing masses of gays
under capitalism against the government
An added problem was its inability to involve lesbians
in a meaningful way in the decision making of the orga-
nization and in all its activities. The problems of males
and females in GLFs continually worsened until splits
occurred in almost every organization with independent
lesbian organizations developing. Most of these splits oc-
curred in 1969-70.
In some cases these splits proved to be a big advance
in organization as females came to lesbian feminist con-
sciousness. However, often in this period, the women's
groups simply adopted an nil-female GLF approach, which
could hardly solve any of the other fundamental problems.
All the centrifical tendencies and conflicts developed to
a head in the New York GLF in the fall of 1969. The
New York Gay Activists Alliance (GAA) was formed when
a dozen gays "shared their concern — even anger that the
potentials for social and political change regarding the
oppression of the homosexual community were not being
used most effectively. From common experiences in other
organizations they all agreed that a structured, single
issue approach would best accomplish their initial goal
of law reform, to give the homosexual citizen the rights
and freedoms granted to every citizen." ("What is GAA?"
N.Y. GAA, June 27, 1971) By January 1970, GAA had
a constitution, officers and a determination to reach out
and involve masses of gay people.
While GAA used many of the tactics, including "zaps,"
that the GLFs had used, they were subordinated in GAA
to a perspective of involving gays in actions.
The major mass actions of GAA have been the Intro
475 fight in New York City, the Albany demonstrations
and the support given to the broader action coalition,
the Christopher Street Liberation Day Committee.
The campaign around Intro 475 extended for about
a year — from early 1971 to its latest defeat in January,
1972. This campaign by GAA involved mass leafletting
of the gay community interventions in public hearings
involving supporters from almost all sectors of society
on a civil liberties basis, and reach out to the gay com-
munity with an agitational appeal for active support in
numerous zaps and demonstrations called.
Intro 475 was defeated, but it will be introduced again.
In 1971 and again a couple of montlis ago, GAA sup-
ported marches in the state capitol of New York — Al-
bany. These marches were initially called by the Tri-
Cities Gay Liberation Front. These demonstrations drew
about 1500 persons in 1971 and around 900 m 1972.
These marches demanded the repeal of the sodomy laws,
repeal of the loitering laws, repeal of the solicitation laws,
repeal of the impersonation laws, enactment of fair em-
ployment legislation and non-discrunination in housing
legislation.
In 1971 and 1972 the Christopher Street Liberation Day
Committee (CSLDC) was a delegated body representing
organizations which functioned as a steering committee
in planning the marches, gay-ins and some of the otlier
projects during the week of activities around Gay Pride
Day. The CSLDC meetings in New York were of 30-50
persons from almost all the gay groups in New York
and some from surrounding cities. Although GAA was
the most active participant in the CSLDC, the lesbian
groups played a more important role in tliis coalition
than most joint activities in the past.
The initial demonstrations called in June 1969 in re-
sponse to the police riot on Christopher Street were of
around 500 to 1000 persons. By the next year the news
of Christopher Street had spread to the entire country and
around 6000 persons participated in the New York march.
By 1971, Christopher Street marches, conferences, forums,
and otlier activities were held in dozens of cities and cam-
puses with more than 25,000 gays participating. From
reports in The Militant and tlie gay press, the actions
this year were smaller— totaling somewhere above 11,000.
This is still significant considering the pressures of the
election year and the effort to get gays off the streets
and into the Democratic closet.
There are two important developments this year that
deserve mention. First, actions occurred this year in areas
where there were no public demonstrations before, e.g.,
Dallas and Atlanta.
Second, the Los Angeles demonstration was organized
around four demands that are becoming an important
: political rallying point for gay activists in southern Cali-
fornia who want to continue mass street demonstratio^C-JX>nz
These four demands as originally stated are: (1) KAiff-va)
legislation of sexuality between consenting persons; (^ >_3aj
End police harassment; (3) Release all persons heldl^tiCli
prisons or mental hospitals convicted of victimless crime^ie ia
(4) End job discrimination. These demands could Ac-i in
formulated better. For example, the first demand coiJ|ft=^ao
be formulated, "Abolish the Sodomy and SolicitatLTT: i gJ
Laws." The important point is not their formulation — »^i o±
unportant as this is— but rather tiiat the developme*ii :'-a!
■u- F
fo
that the nationally coordinated demonstrations are movi
in the direction of taking on a political focus. More on
later.
The Lesbian Feminist Organizations
The Daughters of Bilitis are continuing to be tlie maj
national organization of lesbians. In 1.965 a convent!
of DOB passed a "decentralization" resolution abolish"
the national officers and making each chapter complet
autonomous. In some areas DOB remains the cen'
organized lesbian group — as in New York City and S
Francisco.
DOB is one of the most heterogeneous of the gay org
zations at this point with most women relating to it on o:
of several levels. First and foremost, as a social center '
women who are in the closet. Second, some women parta
pate in reformist efforts toward legal reform in are^ — i-
such as child custody. Third, the younger women w^Kon
have a "livingroom feminist," counterculture perspectiv
The important development in the growth of the lesbia
movement is the emergence of the lesbian feminist grouj
These groups are very small and still developing.
Los Angeles, however, die Lesbian-Feminists lead all
lesbian groups politically through the Lesbian Coalitic
These groups have the clearest perspective of buildiJ
a mass gay liberation movement and are taking the le
in building the gay antiwar participation and are by :
the healtliiest in terms of orientadon in the election peric
It was the Lesbian-Feminists that led the fight in
Los Angeles Christopher Street demonstration meetii
for the advancement of the four demands as the politia
basis for the march.
Another example of the significance in this developms
can be seen from die clarity of the Yellow Springs Ra
calesbians-GLF document inserted in the Discussi
Bulletin, Vol. 30,' No. 1, by Lee Smith.
The Gay Movement in the Election Period
There are three main sectors of the gay movementj
this point grouping around different issues and tacf
First is the reformist and generally conservative wi
which is led by organizations such as the Society for
dividual Rights in San Francisco, the Mattachine Socie
the Metropolitian Community Church, the Daughters
Bilitis and the organizations of die gay gay-bar owna
These groups support abolition of the sodomy laws I
diey now exist but propose legalization only betwf
"consenting adults"; diey do not challenge the laws abrif
ing die right of adolescents to a sexually free life.
the other hand gay liberation organizations raise
demand for abolition of die laws behveen "consent
persons."
These groups have only engaged in lobbying effa
(usually under the NACHO banner) to obtain civil rij
and have opposed any perspective for mass action.
L^ di
Mi
48
emonstratio
are: (1) v^
' persons;
srsons held!
timless cri
nds could
i em and
d Solicitat
mulation-
developr
IS are movi
More on
5naUy, when pressured by younger gay liberation
-itions, have these groups supported actions such as
-cany demonstrations, zaps of various politicians,
; Christopher Street actions,
leaderships of these organizations have become
m supporting liberal Democrats on the local level
idonally for McGovern.
gay liberation organizations such as GAAs and
oier organizations have also been drawn into the
ratic Party through tlae "minority representation."
February, in Chicago, a national gay conference
Jd as a "National Gay Political Strategy Conference"
formed the National Coalition of Gay Organiza-
•XCGO). Tliis conference was briefly reported in
-:c!nt. NCGO was initially conceived of as becom-
-j national gay political caucus, but its actual
:.-ment has been very uneven throughout the country.
::nference passed an extensive "Bill of Gay Rights"
13 formulated quite well. (A copy is appended )
siain work of NCGO has been carried out in
=:ber of regional conferences held throughout the
-.-^ In som.e places, NCGO is essentially a "Gays
::Govern," but in most places its nature is much
i:ined.
major project oriented toward the Democratic Party
ation in Miami was to get gays to the convention
lonstrate. They had only minimimi success in the
■ : n of the organizers.
' that xMcGovern is retreating on the gay rirdit.o
these activities will have to search for some other
ctive if they are, to continue NCGO. With the .shame-
Kzist attacks by McGovern people against the ^ay
te plank, large numbers of NCGO affiliated people
t ^ at a crossroads. They are exploding in fury now
■ iater there wUl no doubt be "private assurances" tliat
overn "privately" supports gay rights.
r-G healthy mass-action tendencies have emerged from
southern California conferences of NCGO. The or-
"rers of the Christopher Street actions in Los Angeles,
ially the Lesbian-Feminists, went to the recent confpr-
held in Bakersfield on .July 1-2 and have caUed for
tional demonstrations around the four demands in
I Angeles on October 7. Initial planning meetings have
ady taken place.
Democratic "Hopefuls"
;:; ample of the drawing of gay activists into tlie
- iratic Party is an article run in the July 5 Advocate
the banner headline, "f.Iinnesota Denis Adopt Gay
-IS." The article said, "Rochester, Minn. - The Min-
-2 Democratic-Farmer-Labor convention adopted a
-:g gay-rights platform June 11 and elected a young
:-c:ivist as an alternate to the Democratic National
■mtion in Pvliami. . . . The platform which calls for
-nting-adults sex legislation and legal same-sex mar-
:i, was adopted exactly as drafted by the DFL Gav
"ts Caucus. ..."
:viously, only tlie smallest concessions were made
^-d these only on paper. But these same actions have
turred m the state caucuses of California, New York
■sgon and other states. '
In^ Miami, the gay rights plank was defeated 54-34
•-ne platform committee. But this has told gays that
---ey would work a little harder in the Democratic Party
•y might win next tima
49
The major candidates, such as Humphrey, Lindsay
and McGovern all had "no comment" positions on the
gay rights question at the start of their campaigns. Mc-
Govern said that it was a state's responsibility^ and totaUy
withm their domain. But as the gay activists organized
and confronted these candidates throughout the count^J^
fee candidates were forced to adapt to the pressures from
the gay movement.
^l "^r^fc ^' ^^^^' ^^"^''' Humphrey was interviewed
on the CBS-owned television station KNXT in Los Angeles
°li?'i ^^ "Newsmakers" program. The interxaewer
asked How do you stand on liberalization of the laws
regarding homosexuality?" HHH's reply was "We'l I
must confess that I believe they (gays) have a case. That
civil liberties and equal protection of the laws applies
equally to all walks of life, to all social habits [sicl So
I ^vould be sympathic to a degree of liberalization
The interviewer continued, 'Would you eliminate homo-
sexuals from federal employment?"
HHH replied, "IFe/^ it would be depending upon whether
or not . . . the degree of sensitivity of tlie job [sic]
Because regrettably in tills world of ours there are a num-
ber of people that feel that homosexuality can be u<=ed
as a way of blackmail upon certain individuals. But
homosexualihy as a roadblock to just normal civU sei-ice
and normal employment within the government, I think
isn't beyond what I would call protection of civil liberties "
"is It a crime?" asked tlie interviewer.
"Well, it's a crime if the state law says .so. You can
change the law. What's a crmie is what the law savs
(Advocate, July 5)." ~
Remember, this is a capifalist politician still running
tor the nomination of tlie Democratic Party being inter-
viewed over IV. What is remarkable Is the manner in
wnich he was attempting to straddle the fence to appeal
to gay voters yet not completely outrage the bigots. HHH's
position says a lot about what he considers the mood
of the country to be and, more importantly, the social
weight of gays.
But McGovern was to outdo PIHH in tJiis area. A "Gay
Citizens for McGovern" committee has been formed and
a big ad campaign begun in West Coast gay nublications.
A printed folded leaflet position paper from'McGovern's
nahonal campaign office has been distributed by the thou-
sands at gay bars and at meetings of gay organizations.
McGovern issued a six-point program for gay rights
tliat IS printed under the title, "Has Anybody Else Spoken
Up For You Lately?" Tlie program covers items such
as elrmmation of discrimination within Federal employ-
ment, an end to dishonarable military discharges, and
end to tax discrimination against single persons living
together and an end to the ban against homosexuals
from immigrating into the United States. McGovern faUs
to mention the sodomy or solicitation laws. But even this
modest position is being thrown overboard as McGov-
ern moves to tlie right.
The Gay Rights Plank was defeated in tlie Platform
Committee by a vote of 54 to 34, with the McGovern
delegates voting against and the Wallace delegates voting
m favor. (A copy of the Gay Rights plank is appended.)
The news of this is spreading throughout the gay lib-
eration organizations and is disillusioning many young
activists in the McGovern campaign. At the National' Peace
Action Coalition conference held in Los Angeles on July
^1-23, a motion was introduced in the gay men's work-
shop to condemn the McGovern campaign and to call
on all gays not to support him. All but one person in
the 32 man workshop supported this motion. Only after
it was remarked tliat Uie antiwar movement should remain
nonpartisan and concentrate on antiwar activities did the
discussion return to the fall action proposals.
Proposed Guidelines for Party Gay Work
The key aspect of the party's orientation at tliis point
should be to chip away at the gay support for McGov-
ern and other liberal candidates and win the best of the
gay activists to our campaign. There are two parts to
this orientation. First, direct intervention wiili our na-
tional campaign, state races and local candidates in ad-
dition to our literary work in The Militant, International
Socialist Review and literature. Second, build the mass
actions of the gay movement that are objectively counter-
posed to the elections.
The party should aggressively intervene in all tlie gay
conferences and organizations with our campaign around
the idea that gays should "Vo/e SWP in '72— Hie Gay
Liberation Campaign!" None of the capitalist candidates
can match the party's record of supporting the Christopher
Street demonstrations, the Albany actions, Intro 475, the
Mike McConnell defense committee, and the gay contingents
of NPAC and WONAAC. Besides this political support
to tliese actions and contingents, we have helped to build
many of these demonstrations.
The partj^'s position on gay oppression and the gay
movement passed at the last convention is unequivocal:
we are opposed to all forms of oppression and discrirniria-
tion in this society.
An example of the interventions possible is the NCGO
national convention scheduled for Minneapolis on Labor
Day weekend, and all of the regional conferences. Tlie
campaign should be there denouncing McGovern and
fighting against any continued support to his campaign
because of his "private" support for gay rights, his stand
on the war, etc. Our intervention in these kinds of con-
ferences should also include support for the antiwar and
women's liberation activities and support to gay mass
demonstrations around the key democratic demands
emerging from the gay movement. Tliese key demands
are:
1) Repeal the sodomy and solicitation laws;
2) Amnesty for gays in prison or hospitals convicted
of victimless crimes;
3) End police harassment;
4) End job discrimination.
The call for demonstrations on October 7 should not
only be supported by the party, but we should help ini-
tiate meetings and coalitions to build these massive non-
exclusionary actions in every city possible. Tliese actions,
coming before the elections, are objectively^ counterposed
to the elections and help break away activists from the
perspective that the only thing they can do in the next
period is to work on the SWP election campaign or Mc-
Govern's campaign. As I pointed out there is already
a great deal of hostility to McGovern developing and
the forces are available among the younger gay libera-
tion organizations to assemble coalitions around these
mass actions.
Where we have the comrades available, it would be
particularly helpful and advantageous to run up-front
gay comrades for Congress or for local office. This helps
explain there is no contradiction in supporting our ca^
paign and building a mass movement. Our campaL
is an important weapon, as in all the mass movemer
in keeping as many activists as possible independent a^f
in the streets during tlie election period.
Educational work is still of critical importance to
gay movement This is important in winning gays to d
perspective of coming out and joining tlie gay liberati:
movement and being politically active ui the other ma
movements, perhaps for the first tune. Also, educatior
work plays an important part in winning allies to the g2
movement from tlie straight sector of society. Campi
groups and coalitions should be encouraged to hold educ
tional classes and conferences that discuss the origins
gay oppression, the situation of gays in relation to
current radicalization and the history of the gaj^rnovemen
V7e should be there to draw the conclusions that only
socialist revolution opens up the possiblity of a just, fra
human society without tlie oppression of gays.
Struggles around democratic rights will continue to
a key area for the gay movement. There will be attemp:
to keep the gay organizations off campus as in the pa"*
and to tlirow tiie already campus registered organization*
off campus. Cases of police harassment and victimiz
tion will arise. Gays will be di.",criminated against •::'■
:'finte terrorism v,_
.. Only our mo-.:'
. ngie-issue civil 1:;
-ui can play a critic- '■
on this perspecti ■
the job or denied jobs. Illegal \
continue to be directed against
ment, has die concepts of a bro..
erties defense committee. Our move :
role in educating the gay activii
and strategy in defense work and we can help laun::-
defense committees in response to some specific situatici
The work done by the comrades in Minneapolis arouL."'
the Mike McConnell defense committee is a good examp^iif
of the work tliat can be done in this area.
It will be necessary that comrades, particularly thos
on campus, work within the gay liberation organizatiorJ
and carry out these perspectives. We want to be knov,-
as a part of the leadership of the gay movement and
be known as the best builders of the mass action coal
fions and the gay contingents.
There may be the forces available for a national can:-]
paign to repeal the sodomy and solicitation laws or
extend the civil rights acts to forbid discrimination basei
on sexual orientation. However, we cannot judge tlia^
until we are members of the gay organizations and hav
a better feel for the movement. We should have this pe?J
spective and allow tire Political Committee to launch
campaign at any appropriate time. However, this ca
be done only after the party has settled the basic quesi
tions of orientation and intervention.
In Summary
The object of the history of the gay movement is
give comrades a feel for the actual development of
gay movement as a real movement which is part of
current radicalization. This is also the reason whj'
extensive appendix is attached with so many document!
of Oie gay movement.
The objective of these guidelines is to lay out a per-J
spective for party intervention in the gay liberation movsj
ment that would bring the party closer to its goal — ths
of becoming the mass revolutionary party with the polj
tical hegemony needed to lead the masses of radicalizing
Americans to a successful transformation of society. To
50
>ur c<
imp a
vemt.
ient t
ir^-=^ai^..^ 4 i
11c.
■1.
r. immediate end to all oppression of homosexuals
mmediate recognition of these basic rights:
?:IGHT TO OUR OWN FEELINGS. This is the
feel attracted to the beauty of members of our
and to embrace these feelings as truly our own,
any question or challenge whatsoever by any
ion, institution or "moral authority."
^IGHT TO LOVE. This is the right to express our
-;-. action, the right to make love with anyone, any
;■ time, provided only that the action be freely
all the persons concerned.
IGHT TO OUR OWN BODIES. This is die right
and express our bodies as we will, to nurture
: display them, to embellisli them, solely in tlie
-ve ourselves determine, independent of any exter-
rol whatsoe\'er.
RIGHT TO BE PERSONS. This is the right to
spress our own individuality under the govern-
■ laws justly made and executed, and to be the
of social and political rights which are guaranteed
Constitution of the United States and the Bill of
enjoined from all legislative bodies and courts,
ded in the fact of our common humanity.
re these rights, we hereby institute Houston Gay
-. which shall be completely and solely dedicated
--.plementation and maintenance; repudiating at
.:ne violence (except for the right of self-defense)
-■"_-y of social protest; disdainmg all ideologies,
political or social; and forbearing alliance with
:: organization except for those whose concrete
:; likewise so specifically dedicated.
y to th-e imagination of oppressed homosexuals
that we commend the consideration of tliese
n whose actions alone depends all tire hope for
t of their lasting procurement.
WHAT IS GAY LIBERATION
(August, 1971)
ation is an activist homosexual civil rights
in. Membership is open to all persons who
the purpose of the organization and are pre-
work and devote time to their implementation.
ration is open to all varieties of hoinosexual
•": member may be discrimmated against be-
rrsonal appearance, style of behavior or sexual
Liberation has adopted this policy recognizing
'\ze against sub-minorities within the Gay com-
-. -consistent witli the struggle for fundamental
.vTition avoids involvements in any program
: : obviously relevant to homosexual liberation,
-dividual members of Gay Liberation are in-
.^ny social causes. Gay Liberation has adopted
:i being a one-issue organization which in-
- -de range of people having diverse social per-
:-ition is a loosely structured organization witii
committees. Committee membership is open
- :er interested in the particular goal of a spe-
.'?. All policy decisions are made by the gen-
.- ;nip.
riration is a political organization employing
of orderly confrontation politics. Politicians
ii:als in society who contribute to the oppres-
sion of homosexuals are publicly exposed through public
confrontation, mass demonstrations and sit-ins. Gay Lib-
eration has adopted tliis policy recognizing tliat an essen-
tial aspect of tlie Gay Liberation is the developinent of
an open sense of public identity in the Gay Community
and a corresponding sense of responsibility' on the part
of the government. However, Gay Liberation does not
endorse any candidate for public office or any political
partj'. The response of politicians to Gay Liberation con-
frontations is given the widest possible circulation in the
straight and gay press, but the organization itself does
not make any commitments to any one politician. Gay
Liberation has adopted this policy to avoid comproniising
entanglements within tlie political system.
Gay Liberation is a cultural organization and recog-
nizes tliat homosexuals are socially, educationally and
culturally oppressed. Gay Liberation sponsors a variety
of activities such as dances, consciousness-raising sessions,
and small discussion groups to promote tlie unity and
morale of the Gay community and to increase die mem-
bers' awareness of their common oppression. Gay Lib-
eration espouses the philosophy that known homosexuals
have a right to live in and participate fully in the life
of tlie community. ■ ■ ' •
RESOLUTION OF THE NATIONAL COALITION OF
GAY ORGANIZATIONS
[Th.e following resolution was passed at the National'
Conference on Gay Political Strategy held in Chicago,
February 11-13, 1972. The conference was attended by
approximately 200 persons from 86 organizations from
throughout the country. The conference was broadly recog-
nized as a major conference of the entire gay liberation
movement Not only were all major tendencies of the
gay movement represented, hut Dr. Benjamin Spock at-
tended and spoke as the People's Party presidential can-
didate. Also, Mayor Lindsey sent a telegram to the con-
ference presumably pledging active support for the "goals
of this nation's gay community, both in New York City
and in my campaign for the presidency (sic) (Advocate,
March 15, 1972, page 1).']
[ The following has been referred to as the "Bill of Gay
Rights" and as the "Gay Rights Platform," and established
the National Coalition of Gay Organizations. — M. M.]
Millions of gay women and men in this country are sub-
ject to severe social, economic, legal and psychological
oppression because of their sexual orientation.
We affirm tlie right of all persons to define and express
their own sensibility, emotionality' and sexuality and to
choose their own life-style, so long as they don't infringe
upon the rights of others. We pledge an end to all social,
economic and legal oppression of gay women and men.
We demand tlie repeal of all laws forbidding voluntary
sex acts involving consenting persons in private
Lav/s forbidding loiterhig for the purpose of soliciting
for a homosexual liaison are vague and unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, they are frequently used as the legal cover
for police entrapment of gay women and men.
We demand the repeal of all laws prohibiting solicitation
for a voluntary private liaison.
52
gain hegemony we must intervene in all the mass move-
ments of this radicalization. Naturally, intervention in
all tlie mass movements is a dialectial strategy of balanced
work in the independent movements and work in the
party's own name such as our election campaigns. Com-
rades must answer the question: What strategy and orienta-
r
tion vis-a-vis the gay liberation movement brings
party closer to our fundamental goal? I think that i
intervention in the radicalization as it develops, and|
as some comrades fantacize that it should be, will a3
the eventual victory we are working for.
APPENDIX
[Five documents are reprinted here for the information
of comrades that supplement the main body of my con-
tribution. Where necessary I have added some additional
comments of my own ivhich appear in this bulletin in
italics.— M.M.]
STATEMENTS BY HOUSTON GLF AND HOUSTON GL
[The following are three documents from Houston gay lib-
eration organizations. ITie first, "Houston Gay Liberation
Front Statement of Purpose and Demands," was orig-
inally formulated by gay activists at the Black Panther
Peoples Revolutionary Constitutional Convention held in
Philadelphia in 1969. All the GLFs tended to be based
on a similar statement of purpose and demands. —■ M. M.\
liOUSTON GAY LIBERATION FRONT:
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE & DEMANDS
(Fall, 1970)
We, the brothers and sisters of tlie Houston Gay Libera-
tion Front, declare ourselves a political group. We are
.liberating ourselves from oppression and suppression,
both that which comes from within ourselves and tliat
which comes from oppressive social forces. We are gay.
Getting our heads togeflier. Loving one anoQier. We will
'be free.
In order to achieve this we require:
1. The right to be gay anytime, anyplace.
2. The right to free physiological change and modifica-
tion of sex upon demand.
3. The right to free dress and adornment.
4. That all modes of human sexual self-expression be-
bA'een consenting individuals deserve protection of the
law and social sanction.
5. The right of every child to develop in a non-sexist,
non-possessive atmosphere, which is the responsibility
of all people to create.
6. That a free educational system present the entire range
of human sexuality, without advocation of any one form
or style; that no sexist rules and sex-determined skills
be fostered by the schools.
7. That the Language be modified so that no gender take
priority.
8. That the judicial system be run by the people through
people's courts. That all persons being tried be tried
by a representation of their peer group.
9. That gays be represented in all governmental and
community institutions.
10. That organized religions be condemned for aiding m
the genocide of gay people and enjomed from teaching
hatred and superstition.
11. That psychiatry and psychology be enjoined fa
advocating a preference for any form of sexuality,
the enforcement of tliat preference by shock trea
brainwashing, imprisonment, etc.
12. The abolition of the nuclear family because it
petuates the false categories of homosexuality and he:
sexuality.
13. llie immediate release of and reparations for
and other political prisoners from prisons and me
institutions. The support by gay political prisoner;
all other political prisoners.
14. That gays determine the destiny of their own c<
munities. #
15. That all people, regardless of sex or sexual orie:^'
tion, share the labor and products of society. •'
16. That technology be used to liberate .all people of #'
world from drudgery.
17. An immediate end to military oppression both
home and abroad.
18. An immediate end to all police harassment and b
tality.
19. Tlie full participation and support of gays in
people's revolution.
20. Finally, an end to domination of one person by
other.
[After a numbei- of m,onths a transformation occurre
Houston GLF that paralleled the splits in Neio
and other cities that produced New York GAA and simi
groups. In A.ugust 1971 the following two docume
were prepared by part of the original leadership of (
and submitted to Houston GL as it was now called,
group dropped the "Front" as part of an attempt to at
the ultraleftism that went along with the GLF actit
and structure. Tlie following tivo statements are patte
after statements by NY GAA — M. M. ]
HOUSTON GAY LIBERATION:
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
(August, 1971)
WE AS LIBERATED GAY ACTPVISTS demand :
dom for the expression of our dignity and value as
man beings through confrontation with and disarm ar
of all mechanisms which unjustly inhibit us; social, -
nomic and political. Before the public conscience, we
51
■t brings |
nk that
aps, and
^1 will ass
Srejudice and myth have led to widespread discrimina-
t against gay women and men.
Ife demand the enactment of civil rights legislation which
' prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation,
aployment, housing, public accommodations and pub-
ervices.
Jined fr
-lality,
treatm
-ise it
ind hete
s for g,
nd meni
isoners
d fre
as hu-(
amen
I, eco-|
ve de
:ands: . ■'' i ■■ ■ ■
eral:
Amend all Federal Civil Rights Acts, other legislation
governmental controls to prohibit discrimination in
oyment, housing, public accommodations and public
ices because of one's sexual orientation.
Issuance by the President of an executive order pro-
iting the military from excluding persons who of their
•z volition desire entrance to the Armed Forces for
sons of their sexual orientation and from issuing less-
fully honorable discharges for homosexuality and
upgrading to full honorable of all such discharges for
osexuality previously issued with retroactive benefits.
Issuance by tlie President of an executive order pro-
Iting discrimination in tlie Federal Civil Service because
sexual orientation in hiring and promoting; and pro-
ting discrimination against gay women and men in
;rity clearances.
Elimination of tax inequities victimizing single per-
and same-sex couples.
Elimination of bars to the entry, immigration and
ife-iralization of homosexual aliens.
- Federal encouragement and support for sex education
■: --ses prepared and taught by qualified gay women
f- men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy
rierence and life-style and as a viable alternative to
k 'osexuality.
Appropriate executive orders, regulations, and legis-
i - jn banning the compiling, maintenance, and dissemina-
I ■- of the information on individual sexual preferences,
-avior and social and political activities for dossiers
data banks and ordering the immediate destruction
■ such existing data.
Federal funding of aid projects by gay women's
i men's organizations designed to alleviate tlie problems
3untered by gay women and men which are engendered
^an oppressive sexist society.
Immediate release of all gay v/omen and men now
arcerated in detention centers, prisons and mental ins titu-
because of sexual offenses relating to victimless
les or tlieir sexual orientation and tliat adequate com-
-sation be made for the mental and physical duress
countered and that all existing records relating to the
rarceratiou be immediately expunged.
::ate:
All federal legislation and programs enumerated in
lands 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9 above should be implemented
he state level where applicable.
. Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual
:s involving consenting persons' equilization for homo-
luals and heterosexuals of the enforcement of all laws.
Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for pri-
vate voluntary sexual liaisons and those laws prohibiting
prostitution, both male and femala
4. Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance com-
panies and any other state-regulated companies and any
other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating be-
cause of sexual orientation in msurance and in bonding
or any other control of one's personal demeanor.
5. Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adop-
tion, visitation rights, foster parenting and the like shaU
not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital
status.
6. Repeal of aU laws oppressing transvestism and cross-
dressing.
7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual
consent
8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the
sex or number of persons that enter into a unit of
marriage, and the extension of all legal benefits to aU
persons who cohabit regardless of sex or number.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY GAY RIGHTS PLANK
[T7ie following is the text of the Gay. Rights Plank as sub-
mitted to and rejected by the Platform Committee of the
Democratic Party at its 1972 Miami convention. It was
then submitted to the convention as a whole as a minor-
ity report— M. M.]
Millions of gay women and men in this country are
subject to sever? social, economic, and legal oppression
because of their sexual orientation.
We affirm the right of all persons to define and express
their own sensibility, emotionally, and sexuality, and to
choose their own life-style, so long as they do not infringe
on the rights of others.
The new Democratic Administration wUl:
1. Urge the repeal of all laws, federal and state, re-
garding voluntary sex acts involving consenting persons
in private, laws requiring attire, and laws used as a shield
for police harassment.
2. Enact civU rights legislation which will prohibit dis-
crimination because of sexual orientation in employment,
housing, public accomodations, and public services.
3. Eliminate sexual orientation or preference as a crite-
rion for employment by all public and governmental
agencies, in work under Federal contract, for service in
the United States Armed Services, and for licensing in
government-regulated occupations and professions.
4. Eliminate sexual orientation as a criterion for ob-
taining or retaining loans, insurance and bonding.
5. Eliminate sexual orientation as a criterion for im-
migration to the United States.
6. Upgrade to honorable all less-Oian-honorable mili-
tary discharges previously given solely because of sexual
relations between consenting persons or because of allega-
tions relating to sexual orientation.
7. Seek the release of all persons incarcerated in prisons
and mental instihitions for victimless sex acts.
July 31, 1972
53
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11